1951-05-11

Mr. L. D. Tremblay (Dorchester) moved:: That the name of Mr. Gibson, be substituted for that of Mr. Cruickshank on the standing committee on public accounts.
That the name of Mr. Hosking be substituted for that of Mr. Carroll on the special committee on veterans affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: 
Mr. Fleming:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if or when the government intends to resume lending, through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the additional one-sixth provided by the 1949 legislation, the withdrawal of which has had so much to do with the reduction in the volume of housing built with the assistance of the act?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Henry Winters: I believe the hon. member is fully familiar with the reasons leading up to the decision to suspend the one-sixth. I can only say that when the decision is made to restore it, an announcement will be made at that time.



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, on May 8 the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) referred to the answer I gave on May 7 to his request for information concerning the total amount paid by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys for professional and special services in the fiscal year 1950-51.
The answer that was given is correct. It indicates the actual expenditure made in 1950-51 according to the basis of account classification used by the department in that year. However, as members realize, on the recommendation of the public accounts committee and the Auditor General, the form of presentation of the estimates was materially changed for 1951-52. This has resulted in a considerable change in our department in the method used to classify expenditures. In order to provide a basis for comparison with this year's estimates, last year's accounts have been reconstructed in the same manner for purposes of comparison only.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 267, to incorporate the Scripture Gift Mission (Canada) Incorporated.-Mr. Fleming.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a dispatch in this morning's press regarding legislation for the equalization of freight rates? Can the minister say when such legislation will be introduced, and will it include the recommended $7 million subsidy for the maintenance of the rail link between east qnd west?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I have not seen the dispatch in this morning's press. All I can tell the hon. member is that the legislation to which he refers

is still under consideration. When it is finalized, it will be placed on the order paper.


Hazen Robert Argue: During the present session?


Lionel Chevrier: I hope so.



RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: I should like to
direct a question to the Minister of Transport, with respect to the present shortage of box cars for the movement of grain in the prairie provinces. I should like to be permitted to quote one of several telegrams received today, and this one is from Reeve R. A. Patterson, of Boissevain, Manitoba. It is very significant. It says:
Cars for grain urgently needed in this municipality; this covers station of Boissevain, Ninga, Croll and Regent. Approximately, by estimate of elevator agents at Boissevain alone, 145,000 bushels on farms to come to Boissevain, besides approximately 200,000 in elevators. Grain must be moved to make room for new crop and to help farmers to finance this year's operations. Considerable of this grain is tough; need over fifteen cars a week to clear Boissevain alone by July 31.
An answer to a question in my name which appears on page 2607 of Hansard for May 2 sets forth the problem facing the three prairie provinces by estimating the amount of grain still held in country elevators. This is a very serious matter.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member sent me a copy of
a telegram which he had received from Mr. Patterson, the reeve of a municipality in western Canada. The copy was in his own handwriting, and I am sorry to say it was rather difficult to read. I believe I should add that many other members in the house are receiving similar telegrams, and if I were required to answer them on the orders of the day I suppose we would have to deal with any number of questions. I know that the position is urgent. I can tell the hon. member that it is the responsibility of the wheat board to direct the movement of box cars to the municipalities. The best I can tell the hon. member is that I shall be glad to bring to the attention of the wheat board the representations made by the reeve of this municipality.
The general position concerning box cars is exceedingly better than it was when I made a statement some ten days ago. In fact, the unfavourable balance is now down to 3,176, which is a decrease of 4,300 cars in less than three weeks. At the time I made my statement in the house on April 25, I

indicated that it was hoped that 27 million bushels of grain would be shipped from the lakehead during the month of April. As a matter of fact, 30 million bushels have been shipped, which is 3 million over the estimated April requirement..


James Arthur Ross: From the lakehead, or to the lakehead?


Lionel Chevrier: From the lakehead, and down the river. Then I stated that the delivery of grain cars to Vancouver was not as satisfactory as the chairman of the Canadian wheat board hoped. I made that statement in April. Since then a considerable improvement has taken place. During the period April 23 tp May 8 inclusive, the requirement of the wheat board for deliveries to Vancouver was approximately 2,800 cars, and the railways were able to deliver to Vancouver some 3,150 cars. At the same time, the over-all position during the same period-that is, April 23 to May 8-was well in keeping with the requirements indicated by the wheat board. Total loadings were 17,489 cars as against a requirement of 17,808 cars. The house can therefore see that the position is far better now than it has been at any other time since the inception of the difficulty.


James Arthur Ross: It is still bad, though.



SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I too have a question for the Minister of Transport; this seems to be one of his days. Apparently an agreement was reached yesterday between Canada and the United States concerning the regulation of the use of the radiotelephone on ships on the great lakes. Can the minister make a statement about that agreement, either today or in the near future; and also can he tell us whether it will mean legislation?


Lionel Chevrier: A Canadian delegation and a United States delegation have been discussing for the last four days matters concerning the safety of life at sea with reference to the use of radio on the great lakes. They have reached agreement, but unfortunately it has not been possible for me to discuss this agreement with my colleagues in the cabinet. That will be done in the near future. Whether or not legislation will be required I am not able to say. I think it may, but certainly not at this session.
Inquiries of the Ministry



POULTRY AND POULTRY PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has his attention been drawn to a dispatch announcing the arrival of hundreds of cases of eggs from Holland, and has he any comment to make on it?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The hon. member was kind enough to give notice of his question, and I have therefore had an opportunity of reading the article to which he refers.
I am advised that 1,300 cases of eggs, or
39.000	dozen, arrived in Montreal from Holland on May 4, and are now being regraded for distribution in Canada. This shipment brings the total importations of eggs since January 1, 1951, to 2,964 cases, or 88,920 dozen, of which 500 cases, or 15,000 dozen, were imported from Ireland, and 1,164 cases, or 34,920 dozen, were imported from the United States.
Storage stocks in Canada are low at the present time, due to a slight falling off in marketings and to heavy exports during the present season, which to date have totalled
172.000	cases, or 5,160,000 dozen; and further imports may be expected.
The position there, I think, is clear, namely, that we are exporting many more eggs than we are importing. There are certain reasons why eggs are being brought into certain communities.


Mr. Coldwell:: Can the minister tell us to what countries the eggs were exported? Did they, by any chance, go to Holland?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would greatly doubt it. I think most of them went to the United States.
While I am on my feet I should probably say this, because if I do not make this answer now, there will be another question: Poultry is also being imported, particularly into Winnipeg. That would indicate that probably the producers of poultry and eggs have overdone the cutting down on their production.


Mr. Fraser:: Will the minister say where the poultry is coming from?


James Garfield Gardiner: From the United States- from Minneapolis, mostly.



STRAWBERRIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. Philippe Picard (Bellechasse):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, based on a telegram

Inquiries of the Ministry which I have received from the Syndicat cooperatif des producteurs de fraises de Bellechasse, an organization, grouping four hundred members in my constituency for the production and sale of strawberries, protesting the importation of considerable quantities of strawberries from Holland which threaten to affect the market for their product.
The question is also based on an article written by the prominent journalist, Mr. Eugene L'Heureux, and published in newspapers whose combined circulation is more than 300,000. The question is this:
1.	What is the actual protection granted the strawberry growers against foreign importations?
2.	Has the Department of Agriculture any information with regard to importation of strawberries from Holland?
3.	Has the situation been examined by any department with a view to determining whether such importations may be considered as dumping?
4.	Is it true that such imported strawberries are processed by a method that is not accepted by the United States Department of Agriculture? If so, will his department consider imposing similar restrictions on importations into Canada?
5.	Does the department know of any other method by which our strawberry producers could be protected against mass importation of cheap-selling-strawberries from abroad?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Louis-Philippe Picard: I do not think my hon. friends opposite should protest, in view of the kind of questions they ask.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a number of questions to ask, I think they should appear on the order paper. But I realize that a question relating to the importation of strawberries -may be an urgent one. I am sure strawberries are not yet in season but perhaps I should allow the question to be answered.


Louis-Philippe Picard: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I just ask the question as it stands at the moment, and allow the minister to answer if he is ready to do so?


Mr. Speaker:: That is what I have suggested.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer here, and I think I might just as well give it.
The hon. member was kind enough to let me have advance notice of these questions, and I have had the following answers prepared:
1.	The tariff on fresh imported strawberries is ten per cent. However, during the produc-

tion season on application from the growers through the Canadian Horticultural Council a duty of If cents pound may be applied for a period up to six weeks. The duty on imported strawberries packed in SO2 is 25 per cent.
2.	The Department of Agriculture has no knowledge of any recent importations of SO2 strawberries from Holland, although I am advised that there were some importations last year.
3.	This matter has been discussed with the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Trade apd Commerce. Following an inquiry into the situation by these departments we were advised that there was no evidence of dumping, in these importations.
4.	I am advised that while the United States food and drug administration prohibits the use of sulphur dioxide as a preservative for fruit used in the manufacture of jam, they do not prohibit its use as a preservative for dried or glace fruits. So far as the Canada Department of Agriculture is concerned, the preserving of fruit in sulphur dioxide solution is considered an efficient and inexpensive method of preserving the farmers' product until it can be processed, and is a practice followed by processors for export and for use by jam manufacturers in Canada. In the final processing of the product the sulphur dioxide is removed by the cooking. The finished product is analysed to ensure that it is fit for human consumption.
5.	No.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.


The Chairman:: Order. The house again
in committee of supply. Is it the pleasure of the committee to proceed to the consideration of the estimates in detail, beginning with page 269?


Mr. Mclvor:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Drew:: Just a minute. Does that mean that, item by item, we shall proceed without further reference to the numbered item until each item is disposed of?


Mr. Claxton:: That is right.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I would call the first item, item 245, the details of which are to be found at page 269.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence forces-
245. To provide for the defence forces of the navy, army and air services and defence research and development, and to authorize total commitments for

this purpose of $3,831,270,000 including authority notwithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, to make commitments for the current year of $1,924,170,835 and commitments against future years of $1,907,099,165 against which commitments it is estimated that actual expenditures in 1951-52 will not exceed $1,595,050,000 of which $183,050,000 will be provided from section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, as supplemented by item 246, $1,412,000,000.
(Translation):


Mr. Gagnon:: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the study of the national defence estimates go by without saying a few words about the personnel in charge of military affairs in Canada.
If it is fair and reasonable to press for a greater proportion of Canadians of French origin in the federal civil service; if it is logical and sensible to ask that members of our racial group hold the high posts to which they are entitled by reason of their number, their qualities and their ability; if in addition we are right in complaining of the present situation gnd in persistently claiming that the central government the consideration they French Canadians are not receiving from the deserve in respect to the allotment of positions, thereby being deprived of a great deal of influence in the administration of the country, it is also most important that in the various branches of our armed forces, the French Canadians 'be given the rank and the position they deserve.
We are seeking no favours or privileges. In the last war French Canadians nobly did their duty, and it has been recognized by all well informed people that, since the outbreak of the Korean conflict, Quebec has provided its fair share of volunteers. One-third of the high ranking officers' positions in our navy, army and air force, should go to our own people. In return for equality of sacrifice there should be equality of responsibilities and honours.
On Wednesday, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) made in this house a few startling revelations that must have surprised and saddened those who earnestly strive to promote harmony and understanding between the various racial groups in this country.
The hon. member gave many interesting details and clearly showed that French Canadians hold very few high positions in national defence headquarters or in the various services of our armed forces. After listening to the speech of the hon. member for Three Rivers and reading it in Hansard, we can easily understand why the government always declined to issue the list of chiefs of staff and staff officers.
Supply-National Defence
Our ministers were possibly ashamed to show openly how French Canadians have been treated. I congratulate my colleague from Three Rivers on bringing the matter to the attention of the authorities and I fully agree with his statements.
The French Canadian is obviously a gallant soldier but he is also capable of leadership, and I find it extremely unfair that he should be trained and led by officers who are unquestionably upright and honourable but in a language he does not understand.
Let us not forget that most of those who join the army hail from the country and that in rural Quebec the English language is quite unknown, because there is practically no opportunity to use it.
When men are being mobilized for active duty, plain decency requires that at least they be in a position to understand the orders of their superiors.
How can a military career appeal to the young French Canadian serviceman when he knows that his superiors speak a language unknown to him? What pleasure and satisfaction can he derive when he has to stand apart by himself, unable to share in the conversations of his fellows? How sad and wearying must be the constant strain to understand and obey orders spoken or written in a language not his own!
For the French Canadian, the army as it now stands is the Foreign Legion. If this system, which seems to have a character of permanency, is indeed to last indefinitely; if it is an English army that is being sought; if instead of making it a national force, the intention is to make it a racial and unilingual one, let it be known. Our men will stay at home.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) stated he would like to see a larger proportion of French-speaking officers in the three services. That statement possibly reflects a very natural desire, but I wonder what is being done by the general staff to follow it up. Experience has made us sceptical and verbal professions of friendship, especially from leaders in Ottawa, generally leave us rather cold. Our hopes have been so often disappointed, so often have we been lulled in our legitimate dreams by soothing generalities that we have become incredulous. We believe only in facts, palpable and authentic.
Why does the minister state that our people have neither the qualifications nor the experience for promotion to those high ranks?

Supply-National Defence What are the reasons for this deficiency? Is it because the authorities never cared to train French Canadian officers? Were our people given the same chance and opportunity of promotion to the rank of officers?
Military colleges were and still are Englishspeaking. Can anyone say that if French Canadians had had the opportunity of attending a French military school, they would not have succeeded brilliantly?
According to the minister, it would cost too much money. So there is no wish to spend money on teaching military science to French Canadians; but they are being called and enlisted as privates, and our students are being sent to Kingston. It is high time to change that sad state of affairs!
Has the Department of National Defence adopted any plan? How is the situation going to be corrected? If the minister knew-as he must have known-that most officers belonging to the headquarters of his department were English-speaking, why did he not correct this anomaly? Why did he even let it develop?
Posts of major generals, brigadiers, colonels and other officers that make up the establishment have been filled by English-speaking persons! This was not done overnight. Who is responsible for those appointments, who should take the blame for the situation if not the Minister of National Defence and the whole cabinet?
The Liberal party has managed the affairs of this country for fifteen years. For fifteen years it has prepared for war and waged war. The organization of defence and the selection of military personnel have been its work.
If today we have grievances and charges to make, they must be levelled at our present leaders. As a representative of a riding in Quebec province, I urge that the wrongs which have been done to my fellow citizens be righted and that those people's abilities be acknowledged in the armed services as well as in the civil service.
The time to act is now, not tomorrow. We are not asking for speeches and statements; we want prompt and efficient decisions that will do justice to those of our people who dedicate themselves to our country's defence.
If today we have grievances and charges to make, they must be levelled at our present leaders. As a representative of a riding in Quebec province, I urge that the wrongs which have been done to my fellow citizens be righted and that those people's abilities be acknowledged in the armed services as well as in the civil service.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with sympathy to the representations made
IMr. Gagnon.]

by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon). If I said officers of French descent had not the required qualifications, that was not my intention at all. What I did mean to say was that we are short of officers of French descent. For instance, a lieutenant commander in the navy must necessarily have the age and experience required before he is promoted to the rank of admiral; that is obvious.
I have replied to the remarks made by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), as reported on page 2950 of the French debates, and I believe you will find there many reasons for the situation in which we have found ourselves.
We still want French-speaking officers. There is need for them in the navy, army and air force. There are many positions to be filled and the hon. member may be assured that French-speaking officers familiar with both tongues are always promoted. Indeed, they are promoted to higher ranks more often than the others, ,as was the case for brigadiers Allard and Bernat.chez, whom I mentioned yesterday and who both are very distinguished officers. If there are others, I shall be very glad of it.
(Text):


Mr. Pearkes:: Mr. Chairman, I understand that item 245 has been called, and that it is now the proposal to continue with the details as they are set out at page 269, the first group of which is under the heading of "Departmental administration, including inspection services and civil defence". I wonder if the minister who is now responsible for civil defence would now make a statement in this connection? I notice that the subject of civil defence is not separated as a separate detail under the group of details connected with departmental administration.


Brooke Claxton: The minister responsible for civil defence is here. He might make his statement either now or, alternatively, at the conclusion of the discussion on the other items, whichever is the more suitable to hon. members.


George Randolph Pearkes: I suggest, if I may, that it be done now, if that is suitable to the minister.


Mr. Marlin:: Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I say that the report and statement I am about to make involve, in large measure, work that was done under the direction of my colleague the Minister of National Defence when this matter was under his jurisdiction and before the transfer of duties to the Department of National Health and Welfare.
The purpose of civil defence is to defend the population of Canada and the property of

the Canadian people against enemy action in time of war, and to take measures to reduce loss of life, to afford medical and other assistance to the civil population, and to mitigate the property damage that may be caused by such enemy action.
The type of civil defence that is perhaps best known-because of the part it played in the United Kingdom in the last war-is the protection of cities against air attack, the provision of medical, nursing, hospital and other assistance to aid the victims of air attack, and measures to deal with fire and other property damage.
This, however, is only one illustration of the type of work that falls within the general scope of civil defence. It includes planning for advance warning of attacks in liaison with the armed forces, for emergency food and welfare measures, and for protection of industrial plants and other essential facilities against sabotage. It has many other aspects with which I will deal in the course of my remarks.
It will be clear, I think, that on one boundary of its functions civil defence is related to the operations and responsibilities of our defence forces. Both civil defence and the armed forces are designed to afford physical protection to the people and property of the nation. However, the function of civil defence stops short of the actual military operations that would be required to deal with any direct attack in force on Canadian territory. That is the function of the navy, army, and air force. Civil defence is, in a sense, defence behind the lines, rather than on the lines of action-if any place can be said to be "behind the lines" in a modern war. Civil defence and the armed forces must, however, in many cases work very closely together.
In another aspect of its work, civil defence fits in with the operations of the R.C.M.P. and other police organizations dealing with subversive activity within the country. Civil defence is concerned with sabotage and the overt actions of enemy agents directed at the civil populace or at essential facilities. It is, however, primarily the function of the police to deal with espionage and other threats against internal security. The two functions overlap and clearly must be co-ordinated with one another.
I mention these points, and this relationship to the work of the armed forces on the one hand and to that of the police on the other, to emphasize that civil defence is simply one part of the general national organization that has to be established in times such as the present to deal with the dangers that would arise if war should occur.
Supply-National Defence
In a broad sense, the national preparations fall into three parts: preparations to defend the country by military action; preparations to defend the people and the nation behind the lines; and preparations to deal with espionage and subversive elements.
It is the central sector of these preparations that we term "civil defence".
From the very nature of modern warfare and of modem weapons, it would be impossible, even using all the resources and manpower we might have available, to provide anything like complete protection for the civil population through civil defence. Safety is something that can only be relative in a world such as ours. Moreover, what can in practice be done must fall still further short of what in theory we could do.
Civil defence, industrial production, the armed forces and other essential national services will, in time of war, make competing demands on the manpower and production of the country. In time of war both manpower and production fall far short of the demands placed upon them. Priorities have to be established, and even needs of high importance have to be provided for to an extent less than we would wish.
The people of Canada would be the last to feel that the needs of civil defence, the protection of their own persons and property, should be provided at the expense of the striking forces of the country on which victory or defeat must ultimately depend. The armed forces must and will come first in time of war. For this reason, plans for civil defence have to be made with constant regard for the claims on our resources that will be made by the navy, army and air force.
Plans and preparations must also be made in the light of the best estimates that can be formed of the probable localities where danger will be greatest. It must be apparent that in a country of this size, with a widely scattered population, many of our people live in areas that can be regarded as almost entirely immune from air or other enemy attack. In such areas emphasis should be on mutual aid civil defence programs rather than on protective measures.
On the other hand, there are cities and particular localities which by reason of the activities carried on within them, or because of other factors which give them special importance, must be regarded as probable targets if any attack is to be expected. These considerations mean that while civil defence should concern every Canadian citizen, the need for active civil defence measures will not arise to the same degree in all localities,
2930	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence and it probably will not be possible for everyone to participate directly in civil defence.
Where civil defence protective measures are not taken, this will to a large degree mean, not that the individuals and communities are being left exposed and naked to the danger of attack, but that they are considered relatively safe and immune from attack.
With these broad considerations in mind I should like to set out that in 1948, because of world conditions, the government decided to reconstitute the nucleus of a civil defence planning organization. In November of that year Major General F. F. Worthington, well known throughout Canada for his distinguished war record, was appointed federal co-ordinator of civil defence. In succeeding months General Worthington visited all the provincial premiers to get their views and agreement on the best over-all civil defence plan for Canada.
He then studied plans and programs of European countries and the United States. In August 1949 a civil defence co-ordinating committee was established to bring together on a continuing basis representatives from all federal departments and agencies concerned with civil defence. This committee advises on civil defence policy, formulates plans for particular aspects of the problem and generally helps to develop collaboration with the provinces and the municipalities.
Canada's civil defence planning is now in an advanced stage. It draws on the plans of other countries that have had more direct experience than our country in the problem of civil defence. It is, however, related to and based on the fundamental federal character of this country, which embodies a division of responsibility among federal, provincial and municipal governments.
In civil defence, local planning and effort are all-important. It is essential to build an effective organization on the local level. Civil defence in one of its essential aspects is the assurance of the maintenance of normal community services. Fire protection for property obviously must be handled on a local basis, and most other measures for defence and assistance must be organized locally and operated by the citizens of the locality.
In civil defence the main operational responsibility, apart from over-all plans, training and co-ordination, must fall on the local municipal agencies that now maintain the normal amenities of life in Canada's urban communities. In a sense the success or failure of civil defence depends as much on the individual as on the community, since
fMr. Martin.]

voluntary assistance and personal initiative and co-operation are of such importance. Civil defence can, moreover, be helped or hindered by the conduct of the people in the so-called danger area.
Obviously the defence and measures of assistance to be provided for an urban population with the courage and stamina of that of London, England, or of any other of the British communities that suffered so badly in the last war, can be organized much more effectively than that of a populace that might show less steadfastness. In both respects-in respect of readiness to aid in civil defence and in respect to conduct should danger arise-we are fortunate that we can rely on the qualities of the Canadian people.
Beyond individual and community efforts, the role of the provincial and federal governments is largely that of co-ordinating effort, assisting with local measures, and supplementing their preparations, particularly in areas where it is felt the danger is greatest.
To speed up civil defence planning throughout Canada, the first federal-provincial conference on civil defence was convened in Ottawa on August 24 last by the minister then in charge, the Minister of National Defence. This conference formed a continuing committee, made up of federal and provincial ministers and advisers, to further the organization and planning of the civil defence program. The federal government indicated that it would organize and pay for the considerable training program that will be later outlined.
On February 23, 1951, the continuing committee met in Ottawa. This is called the federal-provincial advisory council on civil defence. At this meeting it was announced that the federal government's responsibility would be as follows:
1.	Civil defence organization within federal departments, the armed forces and other federal agencies.
2.	Co-ordination with provincial and local authorities.
3.	Information regarding general civil defence policy.
4.	Co-operation with the United States and other countries.
5.	Allocation of officers of the armed forces to work with provincial authorities to ensure co-ordination.
6.	Provision of an advance warning system in co-operation with provincial and local authorities.

7.	Protection against sabotage of federal works and support for provinces and municipalities.
8.	Research and development in civil defence matters.
9.	Civil defence staff courses and special courses on ABC defence and other technical matters, including payment of travelling expenses to and from the courses and living expenses while in attendance.
10.	Support by federal agencies and armed forces in aid of local authorities in event of attack.
11.	Provision of training aids, manuals and badges for civil defence workers.
12.	Provision of radiological and technical instruments, respirators and special protective clothing for designated civil defence workers in selected areas, in connection with atomic, bacteriological and chemical warfare defence.
13.	In municipalities having over 20,000 people, or other municipalities forming part of a target area, the supply and installation of sirens or other warning devices.
14.	Payment of one-third of the cost of standardizing hose couplings, so as to increase interchangeability of fire-fighting equipment within a target area.
15.	The provision of stirrup pumps and trailer pumps for training purposes.
16.	Stockpiling of such medical supplies and equipment as might be considered necessary.
I might say that I have wanted for the last few weeks to point out the area of agreement between ourselves and the provinces, because I knew that some of the provinces felt it was important that the municipalities in the country be given this information. I have not done so because I thought that this was the first place to state the matter in detail as I have done.
On the provincial level, every province now has a minister responsible for civil defence, and a civil defence co-ordinator. Every province has a civil defence committee composed of senior provincial officials and-in some cases-representatives of provincewide voluntary and professional organizations who assist in the development of plans and the direction of programs.
I have indicated the national organization which has resulted from agreement with the provinces. The provincial organizations are to be integrated with the local community schemes. At the municipal level, almost all the larger cities in Canada have established civil defence committees and appointed civil defence directors. All communities of over
Supply-National Defence 50,000 population, with only two exceptions, and a score or more of smaller cities, already have nucleus organizations in being and are getting down to the job of detailed planning, according to reports we received from the provincial ministers in charge.
Conferences also have been held both individually and collectively with many of the national voluntary organizations for the purpose of determining their relationship to the civil defence program at federal, provincial and local defence levels. Policy statements in this respect have been formulated, as I said, in consultation with the provincial governments. The extent to which these agencies will be integrated into provincial and local plans and the extent to which they will retain their identity in civil defence work rests, of course, with the provincial and municipal authorities.
During the two years of preparatory work on the federal level particular emphasis was placed on training, to prepare some hundreds of Canadians for positions of authority in our civil defence program. The civil defence co-ordinator, a senior member of his staff and two officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have attended a civil defence staff college in the United Kingdom. In addition eight federal employees were sent to United Kingdom schools that gave specialized training in civil defence work at the local level. In January, 1951, a Canadian civil defence staff course was established at Hull under the direction of Colonel Croteau, who had been trained in the United Kingdom. This school was maintained entirely at federal expense, and the federal government paid the travelling and living expenses of the provincial and municipal representatives who attended. Short term orientation training was given to 122 key federal, provincial and municipal officers, and to representatives of leading industrial and national voluntary organizations. These men and women returned to communities in all parts of Canada to help in the organization of civil defence activities in their areas.
In addition to those who have studied in the United Kingdom and the 122 who trained at Hull, 39 Canadian civilian physicians and nurses have attended United States courses on the medical and nursing aspects of atomic warfare, and 48 civilians have taken ABC warfare training provided by the Department of National Defence at Camp Borden. Armed force personnel have taken similar training in larger numbers. So, in all over two hundred Canadian civilians have been given instruction to prepare them for federal,

Supply-National Defence provincial or municipal civil defence assignments, or for industry. These numbers will steadily increase during the coming months as we develop additional specialist courses and as the provincial governments establish their own training schools, there now being in addition to our own school in connection with civil defence another actually in being and one about to start. A technical school for instructors in civil defence has been established and is now beginning its courses at Connaught Ranges, near Ottawa. At this school alone it is hoped to train 400 instructors during the coming months. In addition to providing these various training facilities, the federal government will later supply a number of trained instructors for civil defence training schools set up by the provinces.
I should like to indicate in brief outline some of the other steps the government has taken to prepare plans for every major area of need in case of enemy attack on our population. Action is being taken in such fields as the following: liaison with the armed forces; advance warning; protection against sabotage; information; communications; transportation; health services; welfare services; industrial plant protection; food; and fire-fighting services. Of course I will not have time to comment on all these, but I do want to say a word about one or two of them.
The federal civil defence organization maintains close liaison with the chiefs of staff, as it necessarily must. On the basis of their assessment of the general situation, including the degree of risk, the relative vulnerability of Canadian communities as possible targets and the possible and probable scale of enemy attack, plans have been made and organization developed to minimize the effects of any such attack on the civilian population. Arrangements have also been made with the Department of National Defence for the closest possible liaison, at provincial and local levels, with the armed forces. Selected officers of the armed forces are being detailed to work in this liaison and advisory capacity. In addition there are plans covering the part the armed forces will play in support of civil defence organizations.
If an enemy attack should be directed against Canadian territory it is important to have an effective way of immediately warning both the armed forces and the civil defence authorities. The Minister of National Defence recently announced plans to organize a ground observer corps of 150,000 civilian volunteers to be the eyes and ears of Canada's warning system, supplementing radar and other service devices and observers. Reports from these ground observers and from other

sources will come into the air defence communication centres, where civil defence liaison will be maintained on a 24-hour basis. In that way information can be immediately transmitted to local civil defence communication systems and the appropriate civil defence organizations put on the alert. It will be a federal responsibility to provide the information to the local communication network. From that point local authorities will carry on their work.
The federal government has also undertaken the preparation and publication of certain basic pamphlets, which obviously are important in a matter of this kind. The first of these, "Organization for civil defence" was produced last November. It has been widely distributed and well received by civil defence authorities in Canada and other countries. Manuals on individual basic training subjects and a basic training plan have also been widely distributed, and training memoranda and bulletins are regularly sent out. Useful publications and films produced in the United Kingdom and the United States are also being used or adapted for use in Canada. A second publication entitled "Technical guidance on the provision of air raid shelters" is now available for technical use. A non-technical pamphlet, "How to strengthen domestic basements", will soon be released. Other federal publications now being printed or under preparation include "Structural effects of the atomic bomb"; "How to survive"; "Zoning and dispersal"; "Industrial protection"; "Basic and full first aid", and manuals on various organizational aspects of civil defence covering health services, welfare services and so on.
It is of fundamental importance for civil defence to maintain communications. To prepare appropriate plans to ensure this a civil defence communications section has been established in the Department of Transport, and a civil defence telecommunications committee, comprising all the leading national telegraph, telephone and radio agencies and associations has also been formed and is now at work. Arrangements have been made by this committee to study the communications problem under four headings: line services, point to point radio, radio broadcasting systems, and air raid communications systems.
The federal civil defence health planning group, which has been at work for some months, is responsible for developing overall plans for health services and medical care that will serve as a general pattern for provincial and municipal civil defence services. The national professional health associations and voluntary organizations are co-operating fully. This group, like other federal committees, includes a number of

subcommittees or working parties dealing with such subjects as casualty services, sanitation services, industrial medical services, mental hygiene, nutritional problems, and medical and health supplies. The working party on civil defence casualty services has now completed its preliminary plans for first aid, ambulance service, and emergency hospital accommodation. The working party for laboratory services, which deals with clinical laboratory services, public health procedures and biological warfare, is now preparing its report. The same is being done for other health problems.
I do not propose to deal with the question of research. This is a matter that more specifically comes under the Minister of National Defence, who would be better able to deal with it. One need only point out, with regard to biological and chemical warfare, that very significant work has been done in the research division of the Department of National Defence under Dr. Solandt.
One of the responsibilities assumed by the federal government was to arrange for collaboration with civil defence authorities in the United States. A joint meeting was held in Ottawa on February 21 of this year to agree on measures of co-operation and mutual aid between our two countries in the event of attack. As a result of this meeting, there will be full co-operation on civil defence information, research, planning, organization and training. The object is to ensure that civil defence will be carried on between Canada and the United States as if there were no border.
The agreement, which was confirmed on March 26 by an exchange of notes between the two governments, constitutes the basis for continued co-operation between the federal civil defence authorities in each country, as well as direct co-operation between provincial and state authorities and municipalities where that is desirable. This will make possible direct working relationships in civil defence between provinces and states-for example, between British Columbia and the state of Washington, or between the prairie provinces and the north central states, or between Ontario and Michigan, Ohio and New York. It will also facilitate co-operation between cities like Vancouver and Seattle, or my own city of Windsor and Detroit.
Preparation for civil defence, Mr. Chairman, like modern warfare itself, involves the work and effort of the people of the country-men, women, and even children have a part to play. If we are to be prepared,
Supply-National Defence there must not only be the fullest co-operation of all governments, but also wholehearted public support. The greater part of what is required to be done today calls for time and1 patient effort, preparation and planning. In the months that lie immediately ahead it will be possible, on all three levels of government, to make accelerated progress in building what I know all governmental authorities have in mind-a compact civil defence organization, well planned, well organized, well trained and as adequate as we can make it to meet whatever the uncertain future may hold for this country's civilian population.
It must always be kept in mind that there are great uncertainties centring around any planning for civil defence, uncertainties as to the possible time, place and scale of enemy attack. We have to do the best we can on the basis of such assessments as can tbe formed of the urgency of preparation, the 'state of international tension, the possibility or probability of the actual outbreak of hostilities, and the degree of risk and probable scale of attack. We recognize, all of us, that we cannot afford to be complacent or to content ourselves with inadequate preparations. Nor can we afford to develop an elaborate organization prematurely, and have it rust away in idleness. We must maintain a proper perspective, a proper balance. We must guard against needless diversion of time, manpower, efforts and funds from the main job of production to support our positive military defence efforts.
Above all, we must remember that for a community there is no hiding place. If war, total war, strikes this nation every man, woman and child in every possible target area must develop-as I know they will if that should be necessary-that resolute courage in the face of danger that has always been the mark of our own fighting men. For those living in less vulnerable areas, the instinct to help their neighbours must take a practical and planned form. We must not let the threat of enemy action alarm us into paralysing the life and productive capacity of this country. If we are forced to accept war, we must also accept danger to ourselves at home as well as to our servicemen. We must prepare against enemy attack on our civilian population, while knowing that no preparation, however complete, can cancel out the risk. That is the fact that each one of us must learn to live with. It is the challenge, I think, of our generation, to face the terrors of modern war and not to flinch; to face them, if they should ever come, in
2934	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence the determination that by courage and devotion to the principles we know to be right, we shall win through to a better world and a better life.


Mr. Blair:: Mr. Chairman, when the
defence estimates were being considered last September, I brought this matter of civil defence to the attention of the committee. At that time I made it clear that there was no desire to alarm the population of this country, but at the same time we should make plans. Since that time, I have been very much disturbed, especially the other night when I read a speech made by General Worthington concerning this matter. I am going to read some of it into the record, because I think we have to adopt a position that is absolutely clear. Either it is worth while doing something about this now or, as the minister has said, we might delay doing something about it until there was an actual state of war. I quote now from a press dispatch in the Ottawa Journal of May 7 what that distinguished soldier Major General Worthington said about it in a speech on V-E day at Aylmer:
. . . the General said there was no place on this continent which was not subject to invasion. In a future war America would not be protected by the barriers of two oceans and an Arctic icecap.
"Today the front line is your own front yard," he said. He warned that the method of warfare now was to smash at the civil population in order to disrupt the home front and the productive capacity of a nation.
General Worthington said the civilian population would need to be trained to know what to do to the event of invasion to minimize the effect on morale and production.
Sir, if there was anything further that was needed to cause alarm, it was an article appearing on May 8, generally carried by the press throughout Canada but which I happened to see in the Toronto Telegram. It carries the headline, "War Means A-Bombs Wipe Out U.S. Cities; Truman Raps Mac-Arthur." We are not going to bring the MacArthur affair into this discussion. We are concerned about what Truman said concerning the possibility of warfare on this continent. The article reads:
Washington, May 8, President Truman told the United States last night an atomic war with Russia is "a real possibility," but it would be more likely under the policies of General Douglas MacArthur.
Mr. Truman said atomic warfare might wipe out some of the major cities of the U.S., and "I do not want to be responsible for bringing that about."
Further on in the same article he states:
"The thing that is at stake in this debate may be atomic war. Our foreign policy is not a political issue. It is a matter of life and death. It is a matter of the future of mankind."
I again say that we should either seriously consider this matter or say that it is


a matter we may delay until something really does happen. I say to the minister that the age of delay is gone as certainly as the age of chivalry. Certainly, our United States friends found that out at Pearl Harbor. Nations today do not bother declaring war or giving a month's or two months' notice that they are going to make war. Possibly the last time this custom was followed was at the battle of Fontenoy, where the French said "English gentlemen, fire first." I have quoted these two authorities, Major General Worthington, the present head of the civil defence body of Canada, and the president of a great country like the United States, who have said definitely that this type of war is a possibility and may occur. It would appear to me that in this matter we are sitting on a bomb. If anything further was needed to cause alarm so far as I was concerned, it was the speech by the minister which has been referred to in the house several times, in which he attempted to whip some white fighting fury into a group gathered for a course up at Connaught Ranges. While the minister may have been misquoted, there was no doubt whatever of the result, because the heading in the Ottawa Journal whips up fury against the Soviet threat; and I may tell the minister that I am all for It. But I was amazed that a placid man like the minister can be whipped into such a fighting fury that he came out with words of this type. The speech goes down as one of the great fighting speeches in history.


An hon. Member:: Fighting Paul.


William Gourlay Blair: It was something like that of Henry V before the battle of Harfleur in which he said:
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
History is full of great quotations like that. But today the minister comes up with another calm speech. He seems to be in varying moods in regard to this matter since he has joined the martial branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Today he comes up with a long speech on organization; it was a most quiet one, and he spoke in just about the way that you would plan out a campaign for something that you were going to do across Canada with regard to a welfare project. But two days before he was simply fighting. Possibly he looked at these people gathered out at Connaught Ranges and said to himself: "These people have just come in for a course; they are not too greatly interested". Then he ranged forth with this "every man must do his duty" sort of thing. I am not criticizing

the minister for that. Thank God that there is somebody in this government who is trying to arouse the people. So far as this country is concerned, I have been amazed that, when we are getting soldiers killed in Korea, we talk about forming brigades and about battle squadrons of the air force. This country is at war, but nobody has ever said that this country is at war. For that I blame the Minister of National Defence, the government and the Prime Minister.
I am going home this week end .and nobody will ever mention it. People are going about their everyday tasks. They do not seem to think that we are in the precarious position that we in fact are in at the present time. There is something wrong. Either we in this country are at war and we are in danger- and the Minister of National Health and Welfare in conjunction with the Minister of National Defence saw fit to make a speech today on an important subject-or we are not. We are one place or the other. So far as I am concerned, I may say that disliking these people with this other ideology as I do I have no faith whatever that there would not be a diversionary raid or a sneak attack; and their history has never proved that they can be trusted or that we are still existing in an age of chivalry. As I say, we should have more than plans on paper.
On Sunday I attended a meeting of the eastern Ontario branch of the Canadian Legion and I heard the discussion there. I heard a fine speech on civil defence. The main part of it was that the Legion itself was anxious to do something about it. They offered to co-operate in any way possible. I know of towns who have attempted to do something about it, with all the best spirit and, will of good Canadian citizens. One town in my riding went to the trouble last winter of organizing for civil defence, feeling that there was some need for it. On Sunday I spoke to one of those men and said.: What are you doing about this? He said: Well, we have had another meeting since. Mr. Chairman, as far as civil defence is concerned, this country will not be defended by meetings. We have got to get beyond that stage. We have got to get down to something really practical.
Last year when I took up this matter I made what I thought was a thorough review so far as danger in this country is concerned. I discussed the matter of atom bomb attack, or explosive bomb attack, germ warfare, chemical warfare and that sort of thing. I did bring the matter before the House of Commons, and two or three times in the course of that address I stated that it was far from my wish to do anything to alarm the Canadian people. But it is some eight 80709-187
Supply-National Defence and a half months since that speech was made. There was discussion then, and other hon. members in the house supported my view.
While those plans shown by the minister today may exist on paper, what would happen if this thing should suddenly come upon us, or if there was another Pearl Harbor? If the matter of organization is a big thing, it would appear to me that much more should have been accomplished in that time with regard to the provinces and municipalities. To date all that has been done is a matter of arrangements, paper work and plans. We should have something more practical than that.
Again, Mr. Chairman, without any idea of causing alarm to the people, I am looking for quiet organization of an effective unit of civil defence in this district. I think we should be getting on further with the job than we have been, Let us consider what could happen if the capital, Ottawa, were bombed some time. It could be bombed. It might not be an industrial target, but it could be bombed for the effect on morale. Or suppose if in this area the places where we develop electricity were bombed; and without mentioning any names, I may say there are some close to our capital. There are one or two in this valley where a great deal of the industrial electricity of Ontario is developed. Some form of sabotage or even a sneak bombing attack could put those out of business and tie up all our industries. One also wonders, as far as the capital is concerned, even if civil defence is something apart from the Department of National Defence, what protection, we have in this area in the way of anti-aircraft protection. I am not aware of what the plans are so far as the Minister of National Defence is concerned. But I know that all the antiaircraft protection I have seen in this area is an excellent anti-aircraft unit in Lanark and Renfrew, of which I feel extremely proud. There are good officers; there are good N.C.O.'s. But as with any other unit, they are having difficulty in getting people into it. That unit is armed with a type of antiaircraft gun which would be considered antique under present-day standards.
In cities like Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton or Montreal, I wonder just how much the organization has gone forward towards the establishment of banks for blood or plasma in depots outside those cities; because it would be foolish to believe that a depot established in a city could do that type of work. I wonder how far that work has progressed, or have we wasted eight and a half or nine months in getting down to really practical work and to something more than plans on paper?

Supply-National Defence If one can believe even General Worthington himself or the President of the United States, this is a matter of vital importance. It does not look to me as though this would be really an expensive arm of defence, because a great deal of it depends on training. While the minister is training in the school at Connaught men who will bring out an organization of civil defence, or he cited the fact that at some time in the future four hundred people would be well trained in civil defence, it is going to take a great deal longer to train people in their capacity as fire wardens and above all-and I emphasize the phrase "above all"-to train people in first aid to attend to casualties. You cannot train first-aid people overnight. It just cannot be done. The longer they train, the more efficient they become. If it is necessary at all to train people, and if this horrible thing should ever happen to us, you are going to need many skilled workers, so far as courses in first aid or the St. John Ambulance type of course in first aid is concerned. You are going to have to train practically a whole populace, because everybody must understand this. Then you must thoroughly train those people who are capable of dealing with the type of injuries received under bombing attacks-and that will give you any type of injury, stuff that you never see except in mine accidents or in very severe industrial accidents nowadays. That is what you are going to have to do, and that is going to take time; because if a city is going to receive a bombing attack, certainly the hospitals can be Obliterated at the same time. So far, I have not seen any sign in Canada, or in the Ottawa valley, that any person has made a practical survey of anything that could act as a shelter for these people.
I pointed out that problem last September, and I have not seen or heard of any person in my own town, or in the adjacent towns in my own constituency, making a survey so far as town halls, church halls or anything of that type is concerned where casualties could be accommodated.
So far there has been no move to reorganize the excellent work done by the Red Cross in the blood donor service. Once or twice I have heard of some enthusiastic groups who said they were going to blood test and group test all the people in a certain place. That is not going to solve the problem, because in a bomb attack all communications would be disrupted. It would be absolutely foolish to attempt to take a list of blood donor volunteers, call them up and get them to come into a certain point, because, with communications disrupted, and that sort of thing, it would be absolutely impossible. It

would be an excellent thing if every person had a tag around his neck giving his blood grouping.
Depots must be established, and those depots should contain plasma in large quantities. If this thing is going to happen then we must not be caught napping. We would need depots for plasma, for blood, for medical supplies and there should be even depots with possible food supplies. Therefore I look at this picture as it might occur in the Ottawa valley if the capital here were bombed. Work should be done in all the towns in the surrounding area. Every town should be surveyed to find out the possible hospital accommodation, the possible shelter for civilians. That sort of thing should be done. I say to the minister it is discouraging when you find in a large town a group of enthusiastic people who, in all good faith, formed an organization last year, sometime around February or March, and were ready to do anything, ready to go ahead and do something-they had another small meeting-and now the whole matter is dropped. Nothing was done about training people in first-aid courses of the St. John Ambulance, in the Red Cross courses or in anything like that. As I said last fall, I do not believe that people will lose their keenness, so far as this matter is concerned, if the government will say, as President Truman has said to the people of the United States: there is a danger. That is something that has gone through my head. I may say I am absolutely frustrated so far as this is concerned when I think that we enlist people to go to war, and casualty lists are appearing in the papers, but when you ask the average citizen of this country if we are at war he will say: "I don't know." Nothing has been done. Some time ago a great man said that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." I certainly think that if this matter is worth touching at all it is worth getting at right now, and right down to the roots of the matter, and that would be the organizations in these towns.
Certainly the first big thing that could be done is the training of people to handle casualties. As I said before, you are not going to do that in two or three days. If a medical course takes about six or eight years to complete, it is not possible to organize and train civilians to deal with the type of casualties that we are going to have in a matter of a week or two after we have had some intimation that there might be a bombing attack or a diversionary raid on this country.
I am disappointed, having brought this matter to the attention of the house last year, and in all honesty covered all the

branches of possible danger to Canadians, to find that after eight and a half months we have only a plan existing on paper. That has been a great disappointment. I covered all these matters last year. At the same time in that speech I pointed out the difficulty. With the idea of doing something about this, people have written to Washington to get some circulars. I have not yet seen any circulars put out for the people of Canada. I did see something in a magazine the other day which told you how to take care of yourself if there was an atom bomb attack, but some of it seemed a little unusual to me, because if there is an atom bomb attack I do not think you are going to get much chance to do some of the things they suggested. However, I was glad to see somebody doing something about it.
This matter of training the people should have been one of the first things done by this committee which has been set up. It would be very easy to get into operation across Canada organizations like St. John Ambulance, the Canadian Legion and the Canadian Red Cross. If nothing comes of the training, all well and good. It will not be expensive because all this will be largely voluntary and the expense will be practically nil.
It is an advantage to learn some of these things. There is no reason why these people should not have been busy on the job. It is going to take three or four months thoroughly to train people in first aid and in the care of casualties. As I said before, you are not going to do it the same day that you expect that something like this is going to happen. Therefore I implore the minister, even if he has made out plans on paper to deal with this matter, to do something concrete about it. I am always suspicious of plans. May I suggest to the minister that, in his capacity as minister in charge of this work, he take a trip across Canada. I would like to hear him make fifty or a hundred fighting speeches like the one he made at Connaught. If that were done then we would be getting some place, and the people of Canada would be alerted to the possible danger we are in. If there is any co-operation needed, he certainly will get all the co-operation from this side of the house and. from this party; but we want to get on with the job, and we want to get something done.
While I like the idea of the elaborate plans he has made, I say this to him: Be careful you do not get bogged down in paper work and get nothing practical done.


Mr. Noseworthy:: Following what the
minister said, I should like to direct a question
80709-187J
Supply-National Defence to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has his department, or any of the civil defence officers, given any consideration to or done anything to prevent the present trend of providing all our hospital or civilian hospital accommodation in the heart of the large cities? I am thinking now of the city of Toronto, for instance, where we have just completed what is probably one of the best children's hospitals on the continent. We have built it right in the heart of the city, next door to the Toronto General Hospital. We are building another hospital there. We are going to find ourselves with the bulk of the civilian hospital accommodation in the Toronto district all located within a few city blocks of each other. I wonder whether the minister has thought just what would happen to his civilian defence organization in the city of Toronto if a bomb dropped somewhere near the Toronto General Hospital. I find that is true in Toronto, and I understand Montreal is at present about to build hospitals on what is known as the Mile of Mercy, where practically all hospital accommodation is to be centralized. What is being done to see that in future, in view of the kind of world in which we live, something cannot be done to see that hospitals are not built in the centres of cities?


Mr. Martin:: The hon. member has touched upon a point which, of course, would be in the mind of anyone dealing with this problem. I know it was very much in the mind of the Minister of National Defence when he was charged with the responsibility for the matter, and it is very much in our minds.
I would point out, as I said in my statement, that in the pursuit of our plans we are observing the federal character of the country, and that means collaborating with those who are clospr to the operations than we can be, sitting at the centre in a federal state.
With regard to the particular situation in mind, only ten days ago we discussed this and kindred matters with Sir John Hodsoll, head of the civil defence program in the United Kingdom, and with Governor Caldwell, civil defence co-ordinator in the United States. We have made known our views. These will be studied by the responsible authorities in Ontario and, I presume, through them, by the authorities in the city of Toronto.


Mr. Gillis:: I should like to ask a question, while we are on this matter of civil defence. The minister has made a comprehensive statement. I do not think he missed a single detail, and I could not criticize it in any respect. I am glad he went to the proper

Supply-National Defence source to get information on the subject, because what he said sounded to me like a duplication of civil defence in Great Britain during the last war. I do not think it could be any more practical or up to date. But in this complicated country of ours I hope it will not be necessary to get an amendment to the British North America Act for the purpose of financing this program, as between the provinces and the dominion. Would the minister tell us how the expense of bringing this program into effect is to be apportioned among federal, provincial and municipal authorities?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My good friend has complimented me upon the completeness of the statement. I am afraid however that my statement does not deserve his compliment, because apparently it has not convinced the hon. member, or has not indicated to him that I have already dealt with that problem. We had a conference in Ottawa under the chairmanship of my colleague the Minister of National Defence about six or seven weeks ago. This conference was with representatives from thd provinces. Upon that occasion we discussed the area of responsibility, both from the point of view of function and that of finance. I set out today the extent to which at this time the federal government concedes it is prepared to go. I pointed out that we are prepared to undertake the financial responsibility for the training of instructors, both those who would become leaders in communities and those who would become civil defence instructors as well as technical instructors in communities of others who will carry on in connection with this work. We will be responsible for that financially. Already we have paid the way of two hundred people from all parts of this country to Ottawa, and provided for their maintenance while here to take these courses. We are also undertaking the responsibility for providing education material, that is a responsibility we have assumed. We also are making provisions for sirens in communities of twenty thousand and over, and we are accepting about one-third of the cost of hose couplings, to effect the standardization of hose couplings. We have undertaken to pay for the cost of certain equipment for civil defence, and so on.
We do not assume for one moment the full financial responsibility. We say we have a role to play, that the municipalites have a role to play and that the provinces have a role to play. But I may say that at that conference, under the chairmanship of the Minister of National Defence, there was a wide area of agreement.
[Mr. Gillis.l
I would point out to my hon. friend that in most communities of Canada and in all cities of fifty thousand and over, with the exception of two, civil defence directors have been appointed and are actually functioning. Their salaries and their operations, except for those things I have indicated, are being assumed primarily by the municipalities and the provinces.


Mr. Dickey:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on the general question of civil defence. I am. afraid I shall have to take exception to some of the observations of the hon. member for Lanark. Apparently he considers nothing has been done by the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and the federal authorities generally, to deal with this problem.
I would not suggest for one moment that any of us, particularly the two ministers who have been directly responsible, are satisfied with the situation in the matter of civil defence. However it is a big problem which cannot be solved overnight. I say these two ministers are to be complimented upon the way in which the problem has been approached, and upon the progress already made.
I can speak for no part of the country other than that which I represent, but I do say that, through the co-operation of the federal and provincial governments, as well as the authorities of the city of Halifax and the county of Halifax, a great deal has already been done in that area to set up the civil defence organization and to commence preparations for whatever eventuality may lie ahead of us.
I think there is local responsibility in connection with this problem. I submit to the hon. member for Lanark that many of the conditions he described were the kind of thing for which local authorities should accept responsibility. Civil defence is of importance to many localities in the maritime provinces, but particularly to the city of Halifax which I have the honour to represent. Halifax was designated as an important target area by the committee set up some time ago by the Department of National Defence. The residents of Halifax know from past experience of the unexpectedness with which an emergent situation, one creating problems which could not possibly be met without the help of a carefully co-ordinated organization, can arise. As was set out so fully in the statement this afternoon by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the federal government has assumed certain important responsibilities for the training of personnel, the providing of assistance to local

organizations and local governments, the acquiring of necessary equipment and providing of assistance in various ways to local organizations. I know in the case of Halifax we have had the finest possible co-operation from the federal and the provincial authorities. The provincial government has designated Colonel the Hon. A. B. De Wolfe as the minister of the local government responsible for civil defence matters within the province. That gentleman has undertaken his responsibility in a practical and energetic way.
A number of key personnel have already taken the course at the training school which has been in operation for some months in Hull, Quebec, across the river from this city. Those key personnel have gone back to take their places in the local organizations and undertake the necessary jobs of organizing and training of individuals who will form the lower echelons of these organizations. This work has been pressed forward with great energy in Halifax. A civil defence committee has been organized on which are represented the city of Halifax, the town of Dartmouth and the municipalities in the county of Halifax. That committee has undertaken a survey of the needs of the area with respect to civil defence. I think that is the type of survey the hon. member for Lanark was referring to. This survey, which has been pressed forward, has indicated a number of problems which are common to similar areas throughout the country.
It has also indicated a particular and fundamental problem which faces the city of Halifax. I submit to the minister that this problem will have to be faced. I refer to the question of the adequacy of the means of communication to and from Halifax. In order to indicate the nature of this problem I should like to describe briefly the situation in which the city of Halifax finds itself.
It is an urban development situated on a peninsula approximately four and a half miles long and about two miles wide. The only connection with the mainland is by a neck of land about a mile and a quarter to two miles and a half wide. There is a civilian population of about 100,000 on the peninsula with a density of about 24 persons to the acre, which is about half the density of a normal London borough.
In addition to the residential population on the peninsula there is also H.M.C.S. Dockyard, with headquarters of the flag officers of the Atlantic coast. There is also the headquarters of the eastern command of the Canadian army, as well as a number of important army depots and establishments. There is the headquarters of the eastern
Supply-National Defence command of the Royal Canadian Air Force. There are important and extensive port facilities located at both extremities of the peninsula and lining the western shore of the harbour for some three and a half miles. There are the plant and drydocks of Halifax Shipyards Limited which are an important element in the shipbuilding and ship repair facilities of the Canadian Atlantic coast.
All this indicates the importance of the Halifax area and the necessity of making adequate plans to meet the needs of civil defence. One of the main heads in planning for an emergency is that of the evacuation of civil personnel from the danger areas as well as the evacuation of casualties which might be suffered in case of attack. In the case of Halifax, the problem of the evacuation of civilian population and the movement of casualties is made more difficult by the road and rail facilities now serving the area.
The peninsula which I have described is served by a double-track railroad which traverses the one and a quarter mile wide neck of land and then proceeds to the southern extremity of the peninsula. There are only two highways which traverse this peninsula and give access and egress for road transport to the mainland. One road is situated at the northern end of the neck of land and the other is situated at the southern end.
Both these roads are inadequate at present for the rush hour traffic. The province and the city have long-range plans for the improvement of both roads and the elimination of the bottlenecks which exist at both extremities of the neck of land joining Halifax to the mainland. However, these are long-range plans which will take some considerable time to realize in full measure. The Halifax advisory committee on civil defence has made submissions both to the provincial authorities and to the federal civil defence authorities indicating the immediate need from a civil defence point of view of facilities being provided for the evacuation of the civilian population and such casualties as may be suffered over these two narrow bottlenecks. They have requested that from a civil defence point of view the federal and provincial governments work out some program under which the necessary parts of this work can be done immediately. Until that is done it will not be possible to undertake the long-range plan. We in Halifax would like to feel, not in three years or something of that order but if possible within a few months, that if an emergency should arise we will not be faced, with tremendous and almost insurmountable difficulties in dealing with the problem of evacuation.

Supply-National Defence
This matter also has some importance from the point of view of defence. As I have indicated, Halifax is the headquarters of the three defence services in that area, and in addition there are very important defence installations in the city and the immediately surrounding country. If an emergency should arise during which important military operations had to be undertaken immediately, we might have the evacuation of casualties and the -civil population going on at the same time. This would result in inadequate road facilities having to cope with the almost insuperable problem of evacuation, and the defence services using the same transportation and communications facilities for their very essential and important purposes.
I ask the minister to give this problem earnest consideration. We in Halifax and Nova Scotia recognize the share of responsibility that must be accepted by municipal and provincial governments in matters of this kind, but I would ask the minister to consider the problem from the point of view of both civil defence and national defence so that an early solution may be found. I think it is a problem that has to be faced by all levels of governments concerned, and I request the minister to give it his most serious consideration.


Mr. Fulton:: As the minister pointed out in reply to the bon. member for Cape Breton South, his statement dealt with the basis of division as among dominion, provincial and municipal authorities of the financial and physical responsibility for the program of civil defence. There are, however, a certain number of questions of detail which remain unanswered and do not appear clearly at least from listening to the minister's statement; and I rather doubt if they will appear [DOT]dearly when we have had1 an opportunity to read- it. The most important question -can be put in- this form, perhaps. Have the civil defence authorities reached the point yet where they -can estimate the total over-all cost of the program of civil defence they have outlined? I do not mean what it will cost to put a program of -civil defence into effect in -the event of enemy -attack, because I a-m sure that could not be estimated with any degree of accuracy. I mean the cost of putting into organizational practicality the plans the minister now has on paper. Is there any estimate yet as to what those plans will cost, covering such- -things, for instance, as the adoption of a uniform -coupling in fire-fighting services, the training of first aid personnel, and so on? These are things that can- be estimated now. Has -a-ny estimate -been made of the cost of placing this program in a state of readiness within- the fiscal year?
If there is such an estimate, what shares are to be borne by the dominion, the province and the municipality respectively?
I think those questions should be answered if possible, so the authorities concerned may know approximately what they will have to meet in the way of expenditure in order to put this program on a practical basis. Then I would like to bring to the minister's attention the position of the smaller municipalities which normally would not be likely targets, certainly not targets with any high priority, but which by reason of defence installations in the purely military sense or defence production installations, which would not exist except in connection with either military or industrial preparedness, would have a much higher potential priority as targets than otherwise would be the case. Such a municipality, by virtue of its increased vulnerability and increased importance, must now undertake extra -civil defence preparations. Is the cost of those preparations to be borne entirely by the municipality? In other words, is there simply a cut and dried program dividing the cost into such a percentage to be paid by the federal government, such a percentage by the provincial government, and such a percentage by the municipality, or will there be room for special cases to be dealt with on an individual basis? I agree with the hon. member for Lanark that it is not wise to alarm people unduly, but on the other hand neither is it wise to ignore these problems. Having that in- -mind I hesitate to name a particular area, but I have one very definitely in mind; and I think probably the minister knows what I mean. In- that case the municipality, by reason of the sort of thing I have been describing, could certainly be expected now to have a very much higher priority as a target than it would otherwise. Therefore I think some special attention should be paid such places, both because of their higher -priority and because of the fact that they are smaller centres and normally would not have available the resources necessary to meet this situation which has been th-rust upon them. They Should receive special attention from that point of view, and special assistance ir. working out -civil defence preparations. I believe there should foe some leeway so they might also receive a more generous proportion of assistance from the federal authorities than would be the -case under a straight percentage basis which might be worked out for the over-all program. I would be grateful if the minister would deal with those questions in the -course of this discussion.


George Alexander Drew: If that -covers the discussion of civil defence at this stagej Mr. Uickcv-i



II. 1951

Edmund Davie Fulton: Are we to have answers from the minister?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not want to interrupt, but perhaps I could deal with it very briefly.


George Alexander Drew: I was not going to refer to civil defence.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With regard to the point
raised by the hon. member for Halifax, I should point out to him that this matter was fully discussed with the Minister of National Defence when he had this subject under his direction. He intimated in my presence, when I took over, that we would not be prepared at this stage certainly to assist the scheme the hon. member has discussed. Undoubtedly there is a great deal of merit in the proposition, but it is one which would have not only a civil defence but a long-term value. Highways are matters that do not come directly under the jurisdiction of the federal authority. I am afraid this is a matter that will have to be discussed and negotiated between the provincial government and the municipality concerned.
In answer to the hon. member for Kamloops, I cannot give the estimated total cost with regard to the over-all plan, because that depends upon the action to be taken by the provinces. In some cases their budgets have been completed, while in others they have not, as in the case of Ontario. I do not single that province out by way of discrimination, but I just mention it as one which comes to mind. I believe that in the province of British Columbia they have appropriated some money, but what the total cost would be in that province I cannot say at this stage. These will be matters we will have to face as we go along.
With regard to the particular situation the hon. member brought to my attention, I can only say that at this stage it would be impossible for me to give any definite reply, not because I do not want to but because, aS he understands, the municipalities are the creatures of the provinces. The provinces have, at this recent conference, accepted their area of responsibility. It is a matter that would have to be first discussed with them.
So far as the blood bank is concerned, and its great desirability that the member for Lanark mentioned, I fully agree. I would point out to him, however, that the process of building up this bank is under way and has been under way for two months. The Red Cross have been diligent, and are undertaking this work with characteristic vigour.
I can only say that with regard to the matter of training, which as the hon. member for Lanark has pointed out is important, that too is well under way. We are not attempting to do the first-aid training or to establish
Supply-National Defence first-aid schools. That is being left to the proper authorities. We have had discussions with the St. John Ambulance people, for instance, and they are undertaking this work in conjunction with provincial and municipal schemes. I believe the policy on first aid will commend itself to my hon. friend.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Since the minister says it is not possible to give an estimate of the total over-all cost of the program, because not all the provinces and I suppose not all the municipalities have yet prepared their budgets for their share of the cost-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Had not completed their budgets.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -had not completed their budgets, could he tell us whether there is an estimate of the total cost to the dominion for its share of this program? If so, can he tell us what that amount is?
Just before the minister answers that, could he deal with the other question of the locality which has a vital defence installation in its area? Do I understand the procedure is, if the municipality wishes special assistance, to go first to the province, and the province is accepting that chain of communication? Is it a matter to be discussed at all between the municipality and the dominion, by virtue of the fact that it is a defence installation which is in question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: With the province.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And the answer to the first part of the question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: With regard to the first part of the question, the estimated federal amount for the present year totals $4,196,202. Because of the [DOT] necessity of placing orders now for equipment, materials and supplies which will not be delivered until later, authority is also being asked for permission to enter into commitments against funds for 1952-53 totalling $900,000; and also for a further period, funds totalling $1,822,500.


George Alexander Drew: If that disposes of the review of civil defence at this stage, recognizing the item will of course come up again at a later point when it is called-


Murdo William Martin: I hope not tonight.


George Alexander Drew: That, of course, is a matter of
procedure. I wish to return to a discussion of the manner in which we are to deal with the estimates that are before us. Since this subject was mentioned last night, I have had an opportunity of examining in some detail the estimates prepared in the books that were mentioned by the hon. member for Melfort. These books to which he refers, under the separate headings of estimates for navy, for army and for air, covering the total

Supply-National Defence estimates presented to the parliament of the United Kingdom, embrace within 751 pages details of each of the votes in a way that makes it possible to examine this subject in an orderly and intelligible manner. I would point out that these details cover 751 pages, whereas the total of our estimates, both the basic estimates and the details covering all the thirty-two departments with which we deal, cover 540 pages. Yet this one department has 751 pages of detailed estimates and explanations.
It does not stop there. They are then referred to the committee on estimates, and (that committee has an opportunity of considering these in detail, and obtaining information from officials who can deal with it.
I have expressed my own belief on different occasions that we should have the widest inquiry. Since we are not permitted to have that, then I believe we certainly should proceed along the line which has been found so satisfactory at Westminster. The Minister of National Defence has details on a basis similar to these which are before us. There would be no difficulty in having those mimeographed and having them back within three or four days. In any event, I understand it is not the intention to proceed with these estimates on Monday. Certainly by Tuesday or Wednesday at the latest mimeographed copies of the details which are in the possession of the minister, perhaps in the house at this moment, could be made available to the members.
In order to bring my suggestion to a head I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes):
That the committee now rise and report progress, and that further consideration of estimates Nos. 245 to 252 inclusive be deferred until such time as they have been submitted to detailed study by a select committee, reported to the house and again referred to this committee.


Major James William Coldwell: This is a motion to rise and report. Is it debatable?


The Deputy Chairman:: Before I deal with this point, I understand that the hon. member is raising a point of order. I was under the impression that earlier in the day the committee had given its unanimous consent to a certain procedure to be followed from then on, namely, that we should proceed by calling the various detailed sums as they appear under various headings at page 269. I do not have before me copies of Hansard as taken by our reporters earlier in the day; but when I heard the motion made by the leader of the opposition I immediately asked the clerk to see that those copies be brought down if at all possible, in order to make sure if a procedure had already been adopted. I want

to ascertain if that is so. If that is so, the motion made by the leader of the opposition may not be in order at this time. There is a procedure to be followed before the committee, and this one calls for a different procedure. It seems to me that there is a difficulty there with which I am confronted.
I will read the motion again, because I want to make sure-*


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to interrupt you, Mr. Chairman, but may I point out that the fact that that procedure has not been accepted unanimously is demonstrated without any difficulty by the fact that we have all afternoon been having a general discussion under this item. There was no separate item called to raise the subject of civil defence. It was simply widening out to cover the two ministers' activities. That has been covered. The item is still before us, and this is the appropriate place at which to deal with matters of this kind. There was no general agreement. The question was asked as to what the intention was. The hon. member for Nanaimo then quite properly raised the question of civil defence which had not been covered. We now have that before us. It is clear from all of the discussion which followed that there was no unanimous consent to limit the debate. For that very reason the debate has proceeded on the assumption that it is open; and I would submit, as has been pointed out by the leader of the C.C.F. party, that a motion to rise is not debatable.


Brooke Claxton: Speaking to the point of order, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that when the committee met the chairman asked if it was the wish of the committee that we should proceed to the detailed discussion of the estimates at page 269. I think it was the understanding of everyone here that that was the desire of the committee at that time. We then proceeded, and the hon member for Nanaimo asked, under the head of departmental administration on page 269, if it is the intention to discuss civil defence. I said we could do that then or later, whichever met his convenience. We did it then. At that time we were discussing, at page 269-
Defence services-
Departmental administration, including inspection services and civil defence.
It is quite true that there is not a separate item for that; but because of the way in which the defence estimates are put forward in one total sum, it is the way in which it was found convenient for the committee to deal with this matter over the last three years. Once the committee decides to go ahead on a

certain basis, then I should think it would be contrary to the rules of order to reverse that procedure.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I did not rise to make a point of order. I wanted to say that if this motion is put referring only these estimates to a committee, it is in line with what has been suggested, namely, that we have a committee set up. I was not raising a point of order. I was not questioning the right to move this particular motion at this time.


George Alexander Drew: May I point out that standing order 59, in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, second edition, reads as follows:
A motion that the chairman leave the chair is always in order, shall take precedence of any other motion, and shall not be debatable.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Question.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I looked into this standing order when the hon. member made his motion and I also considered citation 480 of Beauchesne, third edition, which reads as follows:
The only motion allowed, when a resolution is under consideration in committee of supply, is that the amount be reduced or that the chairman leave the chair (either without making a report or to report progress on certain resolutions).
If the motion of the leader of the opposition had been "I move that Mr. Chairman do now leave the chair", I would immediately have decided that the motion was not debatable and that the only duty I had to perform was to put the motion forthwith. But what puzzled me, and this is the reason why I raised the matter, was the part in the motion about the procedure; and my understanding was that the procedure had already been decided. Since the situation is doubtful, however, and as I have no authority at the moment on which I can rely for a decision as to whether the motion made by the leader of the opposition is in order or not, I will therefore put the motion right now. Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Mr. Drew moves,
seconded by Mr. Pearkes:
That the committee now rise and report progress, and that further consideration of estimates Nos. 245 to 252 inclusive be deferred until such time as they have been submitted to detailed study by a select committee, reported to the house and again referred to this committee.
Motion negatived: Yeas 35; nays 50.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I declare the
motion lost. Perhaps it would be the wish of the committee to consider the procedure to be followed from now on.
Supply-National Defence
I have the copies of Hansard before me now. Perhaps I should refer to them and see what has been said with respect to procedure. In his opening remarks on this general item the Minister of National Defence said, as reported in Hansard at page 2805:
In order that we may have the discussion of these estimates in the order most convenient to members,
I would suggest that we follow the practice of recent years. This is entirely a matter for the committee and there is no thought of binding it, but it would be a desirable thing and I am sure one that would meet the views of all quarters of the house if hon. members wishing to make statements about defence generally should do so at the outset. We could then follow with a detailed consideration of the estimates beginning at page 269, taking the main heads in the following order: administration, inspection services, civil defence-I would point out that, since the responsibility for civil defence was transferred to the Minister of National Health and Welfare by an order in council dated February 23, this branch of activity falls under that minister and I expect he will be here to make a short statement and to answer any questions-imperial war graves commission, navy, army, air force, defence research, mutual aid, grants, et cetera, pensions.
Perhaps I should quote also the remarks made by the hon. member for Nanaimo in reply to the suggestion offered by the minister.
Mr. Chairman, the method of examining these estimates suggested by the minister will, I feel sure, be acceptable to members on this side of the house.
Then, in Hansard of yesterday, at page 2913, the hon. member for Nanaimo in the course of his remarks said this:
The Minister of National Defence had suggested that, after a general discussion on the general defence policy, we might turn to the details of the estimates as they are laid out at page 269 of the book of estimates. He suggested we might deal with them in the order of administration, inspection services, civil defence, and so on, and that they should be taken one by one so that there would be a chance to discuss each of them.
Earlier in his remarks he had said:
What I was rising to do was to make the suggestion that perhaps we might get along with a careful examination of the estimates.
Then in the typewritten copy of Hansard of today I find these remarks by the hon. member for Nanaimo:
Mr. Chairman, I understand item 245 has been called, and that it is now the proposal to continue with the details as they are set out at page 269, the first group of which is under the heading of "Departmental Administration, including inspection services and civil defence." I wonder if the minister who is now responsible for civil defence would now make a statement in this connection? I notice that the subject of civil defence is not separated as a separate detail under the group of details connected with departmental administration.
At that moment he asked if the minister responsible for civil defence would make a statement on that subject. We had a discussion on civil defence, and the consent of the house had been given earlier to this type of procedure, which has been interrupted

Supply-National Defence by the motion which has just been defeated. This covers civilians only, and it covers Is it the wish of the committee to follow from civilians engaged in civil defence, public now on the procedure which was agreed upon relations and inspection services right across earlier?	Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps I should point out to the committee that the way I propose to call these items will be in the order in which they appear on page 269 of the estimates, under the various headings, the first one being, departmental administration, including inspection services and civil defence; the second one being imperial war graves commission; the third being navy; the fourth, army; the fifth, air; and the sixth, defence research and development. This is item 245 as detailed under these various headings. Is that satisfactory to the hon. members?


George Alexander Drew: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Therefore, I will now call the first section of these detailed sums of item 245, appearing under the heading "Departmental administration, including inspection services and civil defence." These details appear on page 269.


George Randolph Pearkes: The first detail shown under this heading is that of civil salaries and wages. I notice that there has been an increase of roughly $1,200,000 in that item over the amount expended last year. I wonder whether we can have the details of that detail. I wonder whether the minister can tell us why it is necessary to have that large increase in the civil salaries. What are the main salaries covered? Has this amount of money been spent entirely with the headquarters here in Ottawa of the three services, or does it cover the administration in the different divisions, commands, and so forth across the country?


Brooke Claxton: The main reason for the increase is the increase in the activities of the inspection service due to the increased procurement. The staff of the inspection service is to be increased by a total of 323, the staff of the civil defence co-ordinator, for which we still provide the money, by 62. In addition, provision is made for increased rates of pay as announced to take effect as of December, 1950. The total number of civil employees in 1950-51 was 875; in 1951-52, 1,270; so that the increase is practically entirely taken up with the increased activities of the inspection service and civil defence.
[The Deputy Chairman.]


George Randolph Pearkes: What type of inspection service is that? Is it solely concerned with the making of equipment?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: Entirely?


Brooke Claxton: Since the termination of the second world war the job of inspection, which used to be done by the United Kingdom and Canada inspection board, was assumed by the Department of National Defence for itself, and it is now carried on by an officer of the department and a staff assisting him, as well as by a number of expert service personnel. They inspect all equipment-ships, aircraft, motor vehicles, clothing, everything that we buy.


George Randolph Pearkes: Do they go into the factories which are making this equipment?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, in all aircraft factories; for example, there would be continuous inspection of every part as it is made.


George Randolph Pearkes: Do they also go into such organizations as dominion arsenals?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, just the same; Canadian Arsenals Limited is one of the manufacturing establishments which make and supply, through the Department of Defence Production, defence equipment, and we inspect products there in the same way as of any other producer.


George Randolph Pearkes: There is, I believe, a dominion arsenal at Longueuil near Montreal?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is there any change in the policy regarding that? I asked a question on May 4, I think, regarding a story that it was being leased to another firm. Can the minister tell me whether there is any change in the policy?


Brooke Claxton: I will ask my colleague, the Minister of Defence Production, to answer that.


George Randolph Pearkes: Has there been any change in the policy regarding Canadian arsenals, and what exactly is the situation regarding the arsenal at Longueuil?


Mr. Howe:: There is no change in policy to the extent that Canadian Arsenals is intended to keep a continuous nucleus for production of all the types of weapons that Canada will need in event of war. However, in a preparedness program of this type the

arsenal organization is expanded out of its normal routine, as my hon. friend would expect.
The situation at Longueuil is that the Sorel Industries have taken a very large contract for the manufacture of 3-inch guns partly for the Canadian navy, but primarily for the navy of the United States. It is practically an unlimited order-at least their instructions are to make as many guns as they can handle. It was found that instead of building an addition at Sorel the reasonable and economical procedure seemed to be to combine the two gun plants under the one management, so that the forging capacity of one, which is excessive, could be combined with the finishing capacity of the two plants to permit the operation to turn out the maximum production. That is the arrangement at the moment. It is intended to make those two plants the heavy artillery manufacturers in this preparedness program.


George Randolph Pearkes: Then the general nature of the arsenal will be maintained. Will the personnel who have been employed in the arsenal be retained on their special work of providing a nucleus of trained personnel for that development work?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. All the personnel at Longueuil have been absorbed into the combined Sorel-Longueuil operation. There was no transfer of personnel. Expert personnel had in part to a very minor degree been transferred to Sorel when the original contract was entered into there. The balance have now been absorbed into the combined operation. The men who were permanent members of the arsenals organization retain their pension rights in the organization; and when this crisis ends they will continue to man the Longueuil plant, and that plant will be maintained as a pilot or an experimental plant for ordnance, as it was before this preparedness program was undertaken.


George Randolph Pearkes: Are there any service or army personnel there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot say as to that. I presume there were. In staffing arsenals returned men were given priority.


George Randolph Pearkes: I mean active army personnel.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, the arrangement is that all guns destined to the Royal Canadian Navy are inspected by the personnel of the inspection board, which is army personnel; and guns destined for the United States are inspected by military personnel of the United States.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is a complete gun made at Longueuil, or is it done by piecework, letting parts out to other factories in Canada?
Supply-National Defence


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are a great many firms engaged in making components of all kinds. It is a very complicated gun. One of the most essential parts is made by Canadian General Electric at Peterborough, and other components are subcontracted in the Montreal area.


George Alexander Drew: In that connection, would the minister explain what the arrangements are under which government employees are taken over by the privately operating concern?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no special arrangement. They were simply voluntarily transferred from the arsenals payroll to the payroll of Sorel Industries, retaining their right as employees-and I am referring to health rights enjoyed by employees of the arsenals. However, they are now employees of Sorel Industries Limited.


George Alexander Drew: But they do retain their ordinary rights as government employees, upon termination of their employment with Sorel Industries, is that so?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: Is there any precedent for that arrangement? Has that arrangement been carried out in other cases?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is the standard arrangement in the Civil Service of Canada. For instance the Department of Defence Production is a temporary department. No one can establish any rights in the civil service by joining that department. But under the act setting up the department provision is made whereby anyone, who is a civil servant and who transfers to the Department of Defence Production, retains his rights as a civil servant, just as though he were in a permanent department.


George Alexander Drew: But what I had in mind was that this arsenal, as I understood the minister's explanation, was for the purpose of developing various types of heavy ordnance for the the government. How will the experimental and developmental activities of the arsenal be carried on, if its whole personnel has been absorbed into a private enterprise on a special contract?


Brooke Claxton: The answer is that development work is carried on by the Canadian armaments development establishment at Valcartier, which is a branch of the defence research board which, in turn, comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Defence. The development work is being carried on there by officers of the armed forces working together with defence

Supply-National Defence research, -and, with regard to technical matters of production, and the like, personnel of Canadian Arsenals Limited who are specially expert in that field.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would that be a change in policy?


Brooke Claxton: No.


George Randolph Pearkes: In the past was not the research work done at the arsenals? Has it now been changed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I could explain that. It was never the intention to set up the arsenals as a research plant. The purpose was to retain the skills and to retain the machine tools, or a certain number of them, used for the art, and do such gun-work as is carried out in peacetime which, as my hon. friend knows, is largely repair and maintenance work on existing guns or, if a new gun is required-for example, if a British-type gun is abandoned and a United States gun is installed-the tooling for the United States gun would be carried out at the arsenals plant, and the tooling data sent out to whoever was to be in charge of the large-scale production of the weapon.
But that is quite different from development. This is a production plant on a small scale for the purpose of retaining a staff that can be a nucleus of a greatly expanded activity.


George Randolph Pearkes: Where is the repair work being done now on guns of a type different from those being made by this Sorel company?


Brooke Claxton: Those are all done by
Canadian army establishments, largely RCEME-the Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers.


George Randolph Pearkes: They have facilities to repair guns?


Brooke Claxton: Yes; the gun depot is at Long Point.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is not the same place that has been taken over by this Sorel company?


Brooke Claxton: No, it is across the river.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: I was interested in the statement by the Minister of Defence Production in which he pointed out that component parts of the gun are being made by outside industries. Is that distribution under the direction of his department, or of the principal manufacturers of the gun? If there is distribution of the construction of these components, has any such distribution been assigned to industries in the maritime provinces? Many of them had a splendid


record during the last war in the manufacture of guns and other primary requirements.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The distribution of subcontracting is carried out by the private contractor. Whether any of it is being done in the maritime provinces, I cannot say. However, the Trenton plant of Dosco is being equipped with special machinery for doing naval work of a different type, and plans are being made to utilize the manufacturing facilities of the maritime provinces as soon as the primary work has advanced to a point where the work can be distributed.


George Alexander Drew: My impression was that the setting up of these arsenals was for the purpose of having certain machinery available, of having certain skills developed to carry on what the minister has described as the art and which I believe is the term ordinarily applied to the over-all skill in the development of weapons of this type. We are not yet into an all-out war, but it seems to me that if there was a sound argument in the past for setting up arsenals of that kind, for equipping them, for training a skilled staff and for maintaining the gunmaker's art-we are told that we may be in a long struggle for ten, twenty or twenty-five years or more and we know that that struggle is one in which the development of new guns and other arms will be essential for the preservation of peace- it would seem that there is a sound argument now to retain this arsenal for the purpose for which it was built, for which it has been equipped and for which a staff has been trained. Does the minister think it wise at this time to abandon that particular function of the arsenal and to place that skill entirely under a private manufacturer who is carrying out a particular contract with a specific objective?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are using the arsenal for exactly the purpose for which it was retained between the two wars, that is, to have available in Canada skills to do certain operations as required in a war. The three-inch gun is one of the few weapons that has been standardized by three countries. It has always been the objective of Canadian production to obtain contracts of a size that will permit economical operation. Our difficulty in Canada, particularly in the matter of guns, is that until we have all-out fighting the number of guns required by our services is small. For instance, I think our requirement for the three-inch naval gun is something in the order of twelve.
On the other hand, the United States require large facilities and they were willing to place a large order in Canada. I think the original order 'was for something like 125

2S47
guns. Progress has been so favourable that the United States order has been greatly expanded. The Longueuil plant was not suitable for an order of that size and we therefore put a combined order in the Sorel plant, once the order was expanded. We were using the staff of Longueuil on that particular gun and it seemed logical to use the facilities available rather than creating new facilities.
The forging capacity of the Sorel plant is still larger than could be used even on the expanded order of three-inch guns and we hope to put at least two other guns into the same plant. By subcontracting, the combined plant might handle even further business. This is a simple arrangement to balance the productive facilities available in the two plants. There is no forging capacity at Longueuil; they simply have finishing machinery. The Sorel plant has more forging capacity than finishing machinery. By combining the two we get a better operation and we serve the purpose of the arsenal by having a nucleus that can be expanded into a major gun organization.


George Alexander Drew: Have any similar orders been placed with other arsenals or weapon plants owned and operated by the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Our shell production is concentrated at the Lindsay and Quebec arsenals. As we require more shells we are pushing machinery from the arsenals into other private plants. In that way the arsenals are serving the purpose for which they were created, to keep our tooling up to date and to provide a nucleus for the expansion of the shell production.


George Alexander Drew: Has anything been done at the small arms arsenal in Toronto?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a nucleus for the electronics industry. This industry in the last war was largely subcontracted from Research Enterprises. The operations at Research have been contracted into smaller space, but the nucleus of all the work done in the last war was preserved. In this emergency we have taken on large electronics orders which are being handled through Research Enterprises. In fact a plant suitable for assembling one type of equipment for which we have a large order, in contrast to a small order last time, is being built in the Toronto area. Research Enterprises is again providing a nucleus for at least a part of the radar work that is being carried out all over the country.


George Alexander Drew: I was referring to the small arms arsenal.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There again we have the nucleus for the building of small arms. We are tooling up there now for two new weapons
Supply-National Defence and are considering starting plants outside. The tooling we are doing at Long Branch will, if the orders grow, be moved out into other plants. The production of small arms can be expanded from the Long Branch plant into private industry.


George Alexander Drew: The right hon. minister said
that the toolings would be moved out. Does he mean designs and patterns or will the tools themselves be moved out?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certain tools will be moved
out, but I meant more particularly the technique for tooling. A new gun requires a completely new set of tooling. That is worked out at Long Branch, and some of it is used there, but we can also dilute it and send it out to other plants in order to provide new tooling at those points.


George Alexander Drew: Have orders actually been
placed under which the full capacity of the Long Branch plant for -300 calibre rifles and machine guns is being used?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no production of -300 calibre rifles and machine guns because that is not a standard weapon at this time. Until a decision is made as to what will be the standard weapon to produce in Canada we will have no orders for the -300 calibre guns.


George Alexander Drew: I am referring back to a statement made a few minutes ago by the Minister of National Defence that a decision had been made to standardize this weapon. Do I understand now from the right, hon. minister that no order has yet been placed for the production of the -300 calibre rifle or machine gun?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
The house in committee on divorce bills Nos. Ill to 114, 119 to 129, 132 to 146, 149 to 168, 170, 171, 178 to 187.
Mr. Speaker:: Is a motion necessary at
this time? I believe the motion was made the last time these bills were considered. I do not believe any bills have been added since that motion was made, so I believe the order should be the house again in committee.

Private Bills-Divorce



EMILY RITA ROWLANDS SIMPSON

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. Ill for the relief of Emily Rita Rowlands Simpson -Mr. Winkler-Mr. Dion in the chair.
Joseph-Alfred Dion: Is it the wish of the committee that these bills should be taken together or separately?


Mr. Knowles:: One at a time, and clause
Dy clause.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.


Mr, Knowles:: Speaking to clause 1 of this bill I would point out that we started to discuss this bill Tuesday evening, but the sponsor at that time did not have the answers to all the questions put to him. I have looked over the evidence in this case since then, so it is not necessary for me to ask the sponsor further questions; but I do think the committee should take time to consider the nature of the bills we are putting through, and that applies to this Bill No. 111. As I have said on other occasions, if it is the will of the house that we do this job, we should do it in a responsible manner.
My reading of the evidence in this case leads me to feel that Mrs. Simpson is certainly entitled to a divorce from Mr. Simpson. His conduct as spelled out in the evidence is such that I for one would not ask her to continue to live with him or to be married to him. If this bill were to come to a vote I would vote for it; but I must say I am appalled at the nature of the evidence on the basis of which the divorce is granted. I do not intend to go into the details of the evidence, but if I were a lawyer taking a case like this to court I would not hope to get away with it on the evidence on which this case is based.


Mr. McLure:: If you had a retaining fee
you would try to get away with anything.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not a lawyer, but if
I were I would not be a lawyer of that type. I suggest to hon. members that they get copies of the evidence in this case and read it, and in particular page 9. I am sure they will agree with me that it looks as though matters had been carefully arranged in order to obtain the evidence of adultery against Mr. Simpson. I have no doubt he was doing a lot of things he should not have done, but this particular piece of evidence does look as though it was arranged. As I say, that is one of the dilemmas we face in dealing with these matters, and that is one of the reasons I feel parliament is not the proper body to deal with these cases. I believe this is a case that should have been dealt with by a court.

Mr. Cold well:	As I said the other evening, for a number of years in common with a good many members of this house, I am sure, I have simply refused to spend my time reading the evidence in these dozens and dozens of divorce bills that come before us. In spite of the fact that I have been pretty busy over the past few days, however,
I have changed my procedure, and for the first time in a good many years have read the evidence in some of these cases.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre states this is a bill which should be carefully considered before it is passed by this house. It is one of those cases in which investigators or detectives were employed, and where the evidence is given by a couple of detectives. In this case the witness was asked by the clerk of the committee:
Q. What is your name? A. Clarence Melvin Simpson.
Q. What is your age? A. 61.
Q. Where do you live? A. Fonthill, Ontario.
Q. What is your occupation? A. Investigator.
Then the witness was asked by Mr. Harvey:
Q. Mr. Simpson, are you the proprietor of Employers Agency Investigators Limited? A. I am, yes.
Q. You are no relation to the petitioner, are you? A. N o.
Q. Or to the respondent? A. Just a coincidence.
Q. Did you have occasion to be employed by Mrs. Simpson to investigate the activities of her husband?
A. I did.	,	.	, .
Q. Will you look at this photograph and state whether you have seen that subject? A. This is a photograph of a man that Mrs. Simpson identified to me on August 22, in the lobby of the Laurentien hotel as her husband, Mr. Simpson.
By Hon. Mr. Howden:
Q. I presume you mean August, 1950? A. Yes, August, 1950.
By Mr. Harvey:
Q. Did you have occasion to follow this man and ascertain his activities subsequent to that date? A. I did.
q will you tell us what your investigation consisted of and what it revealed?
Then the investigator went on to say that he located Mr. Simpson's car; that he followed the car to a restaurant where Mr. Simpson met a woman, and that they then proceeded to a hotel. I am not going to name the hotel, but it is one of the good hotels in Montreal. Then the story is told of the registration, and how they went up to a room. The detectives put scotch tape on the door and left it there for about three hours. They went back and knocked on the door, and a man put his head out and asked what they wanted. One of the detectives replied: "Oh, I had this room a while ago and I left my raincoat here". Immediately the man tells them to come in and look for the raincoat. When they go in, ostensibly to do so, the witness described what they saw, and on that ground there is an application for divorce.

This business of investigators taping doors and being invited by the guilty party to come into the room and look for a raincoat, or something of that sort, seems exceedingly fishy to me. Then follows a description of the woman, and Hon. Mr. Howden, a member of the committee, asked this question:
Q. You did not make any attempt to obtain the name of the co-respondent? A. No.
I submit that if this were before a court, if a judge were investigating the case, this evidence would be gone into pretty carefully before a divorce would be granted under such circumstances. I am not criticizing the committee of the other place. All you have to do is look at this list of nearly 150 divorce bills. Today I found that they were dealing with another batch of them; that they are occupied next week with a list. I saw two agendas, one with eight cases on it for one day, another with nine cases for another day. I am told that they have to do from eight to twelve cases a day-with two committees of course. As a rule the committee sits from ten thirty in the morning until one o'clock, but sometimes when particularly difficult cases come along, and there are counsel and witnesses, the cases run over into the afternoon. Sometimes, they are longer than that. The average time I should think would be from twenty-five to thirty-five minutes.


Mr. Winkler:: Sometimes they take all day.


Major James William Coldwell: That is what I say, sometimes they take all day. Sometimes they have to go into the afternoon. But where you find from eight to ten cases dealt with, as they are dealt with by the two committees in the morning, it means an average of twenty-five minutes to thirty minutes for each case. By looking at the summary of the evidence that is placed before us in1 some cases, what happens is quite obvious-again, I want to make it quite clear that I am not blaming the members of the other place. I think probably if we had a committee of this house, with several hundred of these divorce cases, our membership in this house would find it difficult to deal with them and do the other business which is expected of us or that we expect the hon. gentlemen1 in the other place to do. I want to make it very clear that I am not making that criticism.
All I am saying is this. Whether or not we believe that we should have divorce in this country, we have divorce. I believe the manner in which it is done today is a reflection upon this parliament. It is a burden placed upon this parliament which we, as hon. members, should do our very best to eliminate. I believe the only way that we can rid ourselves of this burden is to make
Private Bills-Divorce a protest on every bill that comes before this house from now on. We may have to discuss, as I have been doing for the last few minutes, some of the evidence. I have been told that one of the reasons they are able to get through the number of cases that they do is the fact they often have experienced witnesses in these cases who know exactly what to say and do when they come before the committee. The committee has no means whatever of finding out anything other than what it is told. On this evidence, which looks to me to be rather fishy, you find the dissolution of a marriage. I do not feel, as I have often said, that I wish to be a party to this kind of thing.
Mr. Chairman, contrary to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says, that he thinks this bill should go through, I do not think so. It looks to me as though this is a case where the investigators have been careful to get the evidence, and the man at least has been anxious to provide the evidence. The invitation to enter the room to see if the raincoat was still there is a most unlikely occurrence in my opinion, and that alone is ground for further investigation than we have before us in this particular instance. When this bill comes to a vote, I intend to vote against it. I say to hon. gentlemen that we have perhaps been derelict in our duty, because there are so many other matters of importance to all the people of Canada that we should not spend our time in dealing with matters affecting two people- although I should not say only two people.
As a matter of fact I have read only five cases, and I spent quite a little time in reading those five cases. If we had to read the 130 or 140 cases that are now on the list we would be reading nothing else. Perhaps we shall not be doing anything else from now on in the private members' hours but discussing these particular divorce bills. I said just now that they affect two people. In some cases there are children. So far as I can see no consideration, or very little consideration, has been given to the children, although some of the hon. gentlemen investigating do ask whether the children are being cared for. Although I have not been particularly interested in them, I have seen divorce proceedings reported from the courts in Great Britain, and if my recollection serves me well the children are placed in the hands of one of the parents, usually the innocent party, and recommendations are made for their sustenance and their care.


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: That is true here.


Major James William Coldwell: No.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, it is.
2950	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce


Major James William Coldwell: No, if any provision is to be made the case has to go to another court.


Walter Edward Harris: Why not?


Major James William Coldwell: Why should the aggrieved person who has charge of the children have to go through another process of law, with more expense and all the rest of it in order to get some provision for the children? I say that if we had a proper court following proper procedure, we would have greater justice to the individuals and greater justice for the children of the marriage. I say to hon. gentlemen that whether or not we agree with the principle underlying divorce, that is an immaterial point. We have divorce now, and in my judgment it is far better to have it under proper conditions, with a proper judicial inquiry, than the kind of inquiry we have, or rather the kind of evidence we have which is not sufficiently investigated -I should say at least in the case of Bill No. Ill on our list tonight.
So I say to hon. gentlemen that I hope as a result of this discussion and the understanding of' this situation in this country, there will be unanimous opinion in this house that we are going to rid this parliament, particularly the hon. gentlemen of the other place, of the obligation to do this kind of thing. Once or twice I have heard the other place referred to in recent years as merely a divorce mill. That does not bring respect to this parliament or to the gentlemen who occupy seats in the other place. So, Mr. Chairman, I am opposing this bill which, as I say, I have taken the trouble to read.


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two in reply to the interjection by the minister of immigration. When the member for Rosetown-Biggar suggested that the children in these cases would get a better deal from a regular divorce court than from the divorce court of the Senate, it was suggested that his point was not well taken. When someone said that the parties would have to go to a regular court to see that these children were properly cared for, the minister of immigration said in my hearing, and the hearing of other members of this house, why not? My answer is, why should these people have to go to a second court to get justice? Why should there be two separate courts, two sets of lawyers, two lots of lawyers' fees? When the person has to go to one court, namely, this court of the Senate, to get a divorce, then he has to start proceedings all over again to see that the children are properly cared for. I think it is a foolish and stupid expenditure and, may I say with all due respect, a foolish suggestion.


An hon. Member:: It is good for lawyers.
[Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce).1


Walter Edward Harris: Will the hon.
member permit a question? I am not sure whether the argument-


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Is this a question?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: All right.


Walter Edward Harris: I want it clearly understood whether the hon. member is arguing that parliament should exercise jurisdiction over the custody of the children.


Major James William Coldwell: No; he is asking for a court.


Mr.   Kr.ighl@: We are asking for a court in which the divorce and the care of the children can be looked after simultaneously.


Walter Edward Harris: All right.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Now I should like to proceed.


Walter Edward Harris: My question was this. Is that court to be parliament?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I did not hear the question.


Walter Edward Harris: Were you suggesting that parliament should exercise both jurisdictions?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: No. I was suggesting that the whole rotten matter should be taken out of the jurisdiction of parliament and put somewhere else.


Walter Edward Harris: That is a wholly different matter.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I should like to say a word
or two upon this Bill No. Ill, in regard to investigators. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman who is sponsoring these bills a question. May I say that I have the deepest sympathy for him because I know he is performing what he considers to be a public duty. Somebody has to do this dirty work under the legislation as it now stands, and I take it that he is the rather unwilling victim, but in any case the victim. I know that I would so consider myself if I were in his position. But I should like to ask him if he considers that these people who are called investigators are people of integrity and people about whom there could be no suspicion.
I have felt it rather deeply on my conscience in the last five years, not only because I am a member of this House of Commons, having to deal with these matters by this phony and farcical method but also because I have been a member of the standing committee on standing orders, which considers these cases when they come in late, where we give to the people concerned a special dispensation so they can sneak in under the wire, as it were, and have their cases considered when they have not fulfilled the regulations in regard to the time limits for application.

I have read little, I shall admit, of this evidence; but I have read enough to convince me that these investigators as a class are not people to whom I would care to lend money or whose word I would care to take in any particular case.


An hon. Member:: Parasites.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: "Parasites," my hon. friend
has suggested. These are the boys who sneak around in the middle of -the night and put match sticks against bedroom doors, who sneak around with bits of sticky tape, that sticky stuff-


An hon. Member:: Scotch tape.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: -and stick it on the doors.


John Horace Dickey: Jealousy will get you nowhere.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: No one has proved to me in this case that that scotch tape was not removed and another piece put on in its place. I see no evidence to prove that. They say that the scotch tape was there at nine o'clock and that it was also there at twelve. So be it. They said they had looked once in a while to see if the scotch tape had been removed; but in so far as they were concerned, it was still there.


Mr. Stick:: Was it put over the key hole?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I should like to draw to your attention the manner in which this investigator regarded the telling of the truth or the telling of a lie in this particular case. This is his method. He knocked at this door, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said, and he lied to start with. He said: Look, 1 was here two days ago staying in this room. I left my overcoat here. Can I come in and get it?


An hon. Member:: It was a raincoat.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: All right; it was his raincoat. That was a lie to start with, and it is a lie that is apparently condoned in this kind of thing, and is the regular method of doing business. I suggest that investigators who start out on premises of that sort are people whose word should not be taken in any court, I do not care whether it is a court of parliament or whether it is a special court in the matter.
I should like to say that there are peculiar things about this court. This is a peculiar, underhand way of getting a divorce through the back door. Personally I can never see the difference, as a question of conscience, between the setting up of a divorce court in a province and doing it honourably and in a manly fashion and the condoning of the granting of divorce by the House of Commons 80709-188
Private Bills-Divorce by a back door method. As far as I am concerned, that is only splitting hairs and making too fine a distinction for me to appreciate it. May I say that I wholeheartedly respect the opinions of those who oppose divorce upon religious grounds or by reason of their conscience, or on both grounds. I believe that there are a number of the people on the government side who are most sincere in that regard. There is, however, one easy and obvious way by which they could prove that sincerity. When I see and hear some of these hon. gentlemen over there on the government side who object to divorce-and may I reiterate that I respect their views and opinions-croaking out of one side of their mouths "carried, carried" when one of these bills come up, and croaking out of the other side of their mouths "on division", then I begin to wonder about that concern. As far as I am concerned those two things are contradictory terms. I am not stating that the same man says "on division" who says "carried, carried." But I am saying that some of these people over there say "carried, carried" with the object of getting the bill through with the least amount of trouble, while some others are saying "on division". As the Minister of Public Works said the other day-and he said it quite sincerely; and I am quite sure that he does so-he votes against every one of these -bills. But he has not the opportunity to vote against every one of these bills. All he does is to say, "on division, on division" while his friends croak, "carried, carried, carried."


Mr. Sinclair:: It is a free country.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: There are other things that I should like to say about this bill. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said, divorce in this country exists; divorce exists for the people of Quebec and for the people of Newfoundland, because they get divorces through this back door method. As I say, I cannot see the difference between having their divorces granted in a proper and regular way, whereby the children would be looked after and other things would be done, and condoning divorce and shouting "carried" or not opposing them.
I am going to say to my sincere friends- and may I say that I say that with no sarcasm and with all the good will in the world- including the Minister of Public Works, that if he wants to show his active and sincere opposition to divorce, he can gather around him five like-minded people on the other side of the house and they can hold up these divorce bills until the cows come home, and not another divorce bill will pass this house.

Private Bills-Divorce If people are honest in their opposition to divorce, I am going to suggest that they do just that.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has, on one or two occasions, suggested an alternative. He has said-and this would violate no one's conscience-that the province of Quebec, the province of Newfoundland or any other province is perfectly within its rights when it says: We will not set up divorce courts. With that stand I have perfect sympathy. But if they are going to condone the granting of divorce by this back door method, then I suggest they might at least study the proposition as set forth to the house by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He had two propositions, as I remember them. First that there be set up in the capital of Canada a special federal divorce court where these things could be studied, where lawyers would be present. Mr. Speaker, we are not competent here to study these divorce cases. I was not sent to parliament because of any superior knowledge I have of the matter of divorce. I am not competent to judge these things, and yet I am supposed to put my initials, as it * were, on 150, 300 or 400 of these things without any investigation whatever.
I suggest that a divorce court should be set up in some other place. If the people of these provinces object to having it set up in their provinces, why not set it up anywhere, across the road, anywhere in Ottawa, but let us get it out of this parliament.
The second thing that my hon. friend has proposed is that these things should be handled by the exchequer court. I do not know enough about the exchequer court to know whether that is possible or not, but I am sure that any group before whom these things would be tried, where there would be judges, and competent lawyers for the plaintiff and for the respondent, would be more satisfactory than the present procedure, and we could get on with our work, the work that we were sent here to do which, so far as I am concerned, is not to wade through this filthy evidence. I am sure that if our constituents and the people of this country *could read that evidence as it is available to us to read they would give us a mandate to clear this thing out of the House of Commons, a thing which is a farce and a disgrace against the dignity and the conscience of this house.
This is my opinion on the matter, and I have spoken plainly. I hope I have offended no one, but this is what I believe from the

bottom of my heart. Later I shall have a word to say on the subject matter of this particular bill.
Before I sit down I want to say one more thing to you, sir, and to this house, and that is the inequitableness with which these divorce cases are considered. The other day in the committee on miscellaneous private bills we considered one particular divorce. In that case a certain amount of money was involved. The man concerned had set his separated wife up in a rather luxurious life. He had given her a house, a car and a large allowance. A little later he repented of his good deeds, if good deeds they were, and he decided to take away from her that which he had given her, and so the case came before parliament. Here was a case that received considerable attention. They had money on both sides. They were able to hire lawyers, and that takes some money. There was an appeal to the committee on miscellaneous private bills. Here was one case which was thoroughly reviewed by that committee. A lawyer was present representing the petitioner and another lawyer represented the respondent. We heard both sides of the case. We acted in our capacity as judges, and we largely agreed that the divorce should be granted. But my point is this: if these people had not had the money which was involved in that appeal there would have been nc appeal. That particular case was investigated, as every case should be investigated, and I made up my mind that, so far as I am concerned, in every case on which I give a favourable opinion in this House of Commons the evidence shall be studied in this house, and I am going to give my decision on the basis of the evidence that is here produced.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few words to say. There are 129 cases before the committee tonight. The Senate has asked our concurrence in dissolving these marriages. All I ask hon. gentlemen opposite is:	why should these 129 innocent people
be the guinea pigs for this-I will not call it a filibuster; the opposition is entirely within its rights to do this-why should these people be the innocent sufferers for this procedure?


Mr. Maclnnis:: I should like to say a few words in connection with the case which is now before us, but before I say what I intend to say may I suggest to the hon. member for Lisgar, when he says that it is too bad that these people have to suffer when these bills are delayed, that innocent people will suffer no matter when divorce cases are delayed. It is clear, however, that this parliament will never provide any better way for

the people of the provinces who have no divorce courts to get divorce so long as we facilitate divorce through this court. The stand has unfortunately got to be made here by those of us who object to this method of granting divorce.
Having said that, I believe we should discuss this bill a little more temperately than has been done by the last speaker.


Mr.   Cofe@Malapedia-Maiane: Why?


Donald MacInnis: For the reason that I shall give you in a moment. An hon. member referred to this "dirty business". It is easy to see that his married life has been happy. He has not had to try to find means of dissolving his marriage. He also referred to the "back-door method" of getting evidence. I am convinced it is no more a back-door method than is the case in a court of law in any of the provinces. Let us remember, there is only one ground for divorce' in this country, and obviously to find evidence to prove guilt on that ground one does not find it in the public square. No matter whether you hire a lawyer and take the case to a proper court of law-where I think every hon. member will agree with me that is where it ought to go-you are not going to get away from this method of finding evidence or finding proof of guilt, so long as we have adultery as the only ground for divorce.
I think some hon. members will recall that when the divorce act was amended in Great Britain some years ago the humourist of the British House of Commons at that time, A. P. Herbert, wrote a very humorous story to demonstrate what fantastic things one had to do to give proof of infidelity. Eventually the grounds were broadened. The point which I wish to make is this: I am not opposed to this house granting divorce because I do not believe that they are properly investigated. I am satisfied they are just as well investigated as in any court of law. Nevertheless I am satisfied that this is not the place to grant divorce.


An hon. Member:: Let them keep them there.


Donald MacInnis: That is not the question. The laws of Canada provide for divorce, and until such time as the lawmakers of this country provide a court in every province, then those of us who believe that that is the way it should be done have a right to object in this house.


Mr. Cole (Malapedia-Maiane):: Why?


Donald MacInnis: Because we object to the time of the house being taken-
Private Bills-Divorce


Charles Delmar Coyle: What do you think of the Quebec laws?


Donald MacInnis: I am not discussing Quebec laws.


Charles Delmar Coyle: You should.


Donald MacInnis: I am not discussing Quebec laws, but if my hon. friend will go back into Hansard a little he will find that during the years 1923, 1929 and 1930 the people of the province of Ontario had to come to this parliament for divorce. Just imagine what the situation would be today if, with the province of Quebec and the province of Newfoundland, we also had the people of the province of Ontario coming here to seek divorces. We would be doing nothing else from morning until night, from January to July, but hearing divorce cases.


Charles Delmar Coyle: I agree with you on that.


Donald MacInnis: Then if you agree with me on that you undoubtedly agree with me on the rest of my argument. I am very glad to have my hon. friend's agreement, because I think he can give intelligent reasoning to the question.


Charles Delmar Coyle: You will find out later.


Donald MacInnis: During the sessions of 1928, 1929 and 1930, and perhaps 1927 as well, there had to be-well, call it a filibuster, if you like-put on in this house before parliament decided that the province of Ontario should have its own divorce court.
Now, all of us here-and I think I speak for all of us; in any case I speak for myself-


John Horace Dickey: Are you sure about that?


Donald MacInnis: Yes. As I said the other night, as each divorce case comes to a vote I will vote for the granting of the divorce so long as it has gone through the procedure laid down by the rules of parliament. But despite that I do insist that this is not the place for the granting of divorces.


Mr. Cleaver:: Mr. Chairman, I shall not take long in what I have to say. However, I was rather shocked to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Saskatoon a few moments ago, when he referred to the divorces granted by the parliament of Canada and described them as a farce and a disgrace. I do want to put my hon. friend right, because I have known him for many years, and I know he would not have made that statement if he had known the facts.
I want to tell him that no Senate divorce bill comes before this House of Commons
2954	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce for consideration until a trial has been held under oath by competent and experienced persons. At that trial the applicant for the divorce must prove the domicile of the husband, in order to clothe the court with authority-because only the court of the domicile of the husband has authority. Then the applicant must prove the marriage; the applicant must give full particulars respecting the children of the marriage; the applicant in every case-and there is no exception -must prove that adultery was committed by the offending member of the marriage.
Now I ask my hon. friend, in the face of all that-and this evidence must be given under oath-if it is fair to say that a Senate bill comes to the House of Commons as a farce and a disgrace. I also wish to tell my hon. friend this, that I well remember when we did not have a divorce court in Ontario, a time when our courts in Ontario did not have jurisdiction over divorce. I well remember in the early years of practice going to Ottawa and taking part in a divorce case before the Senate. Let me assure my hon. friends who are objecting to this procedure, and who are suggesting that the men who try these divorce cases are incompetent, that the procedure is a farce, or anything of that nature, that from personal experience I can assure them that the cases are carefully and thoroughly tried, and that they are tried in camera.
It is within the province of any member in the house who wishes to do so, on every section of every divorce bill which comes before us-if he wants to regale himself with that sort of publicity or information- it is quite within his rights to ask for and to have put in the minutes of the house the full particulars of the adultery, the full particulars respecting the names of the offenders, and all that sort of thing. But I do suggest that that would be going far afield; I would suggest it is a breach of the confidence that is placed in every member of the house. We are given these rights of information, rights of free speech and all that sort of thing; we are given these rights for our protection, as members of a democracy. But I do suggest that we should not offend against that very protection which is given to us by making ourselves objectionable or by holding up the proceedings of the house as, I believe, was threatened not long ago, until the end of the year, or something of that kind.
That is not the way in which we should assume the responsibilities reposed in us. Each one of these cases is thoroughly and carefully tried'. But under the British North America Act, as we all know, every bill, even when initiated' and) carefully studied in
'Mr. Cleaver.]

the Senate, must come to this house for three readings and for passing. There is no doubt about that. When a Senate bill that has been studied comes to any other committee of the house, unless there is serious opposition to the bill, or something of that nature, we do not go over the work of the Senate again. We do not consider we are rubber stamps if we do not do that work all over again.
I suggest to my hon. friends that if they would take the trouble, unpleasant as it is, to read the evidence given in just two or three of the cases they would see how carefully each case is gone into, and that nothing is missed.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Is the hon. member in favour of the continuance of the present system of handling these divorces?


Hughes Cleaver: I shall be very pleased to answer the question, and to answer it frankly. I was very much pleased when the Supreme Court of Ontario was accorded jurisdiction to handle divorce work, and I would be very much pleased if every province in this country of Canada were to have a provincial court clothed with such jurisdiction.


Major James William Coldwell: On a question of privilege: the hon. member alluded to hon. members who had spoken, and suggested that we were abusing our privilege in parliament when we placed certain matters on the record.


Hughes Cleaver: May I interrupt; I do not wish to offend any member. What I meant was this, that in reading the record of Hansard-because I was not in the chamber the other night-if I read correctly I saw a rather direct threat that each of these bills would have to be called a section at a time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not a threat; it is a right provided by the rules of the house.


Hughes Cleaver: Oh, yes, you are within your rights! This man who poses as the expert on house procedure-I have listened to him this session ad nauseam on something like twelve arguments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. Is it out of order for a member of this house to ask that the rules of the house be obeyed? Is it proper for such a request to be called a threat?


Major James William Coldwell: I had not finished my question of privilege.


Hughes Cleaver: All I can say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is: there he goes again.


Major James William Coldwell: I had not finished my question of privilege. I had taken exception to the suggestion by the hon. member that we

wanted to regale ourselves with this sort of thing, and that we are doing it merely for publicity. I wish to tell him that this sort of thing is pretty obnoxious to me, personally. And so far as I am concerned, I have no desire to go into it. If you will notice, when I spoke on the bill I mentioned no name of any litigant whatsoever-I did not mention even the name of the hotel involved. But we have a right to endeavour to get to the root of this thing to which we object-some of us. I have been here for 15 years and I have objected nearly every year. Apparently the only way we can get this matter out of this parliament where it does not belong is by showing that it is impossible to deal with these bills in the ordinary legislative way.


Hughes Cleaver: Does my hon. friend suggest that this committee has the power to clothe provincial courts with authority?


Major James William Coldwell: No.


Hughes Cleaver: Is not that entirely outside the jurisdiction of this committee?


Major James William Coldwell: I am suggesting that this parliament has the power and the right to designate a federal court that would take these cases instead of their coming before parliament. I was not suggesting that parliament had the right to set up a provincial court; I was suggesting that parliament had the right to designate a federal court where these cases could be heard properly.


Hughes Cleaver: I do not want to be a pest, but I do not take up much time of the committee. Does the hon. member think that it is fair to deny any subject the right to divorce when a marital offence has been committed? That is an inherent right of every subject. Until provincial courts are set up, no matter how much it militates against our feelings and all that sort of thing I think every subject is entitled to divorce.


Major James William Coldwell: I certainly think it is the right of every subject to exercise his right freely in that respect. I think it is the duty of every majority to see that minority opinion is respected wherever a minority opinion exists. I think also that we have the right to take from this house these obnoxious divorce matters and place them in a federal court where they can be handled according to the rules of procedure and the law.
I made it quite clear that I was not criticizing the hon. gentlemen of the Senate when I spoke. I said that I had been there on one or two occasions and had heard them go into these cases. While I thought they were overburdened and pressed for time, I was not critical of them and did not intend to be. That is not the point.
Private Bills-Divorce


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: On a point of order. The hon. member for Halton insinuated that when I said this thing was a farce and a disgrace I was reflecting upon the judgment of the Senate. I had no such intention. When I said it was a farce and a disgrace I was indicating that we should not be asked to rubber stamp something of which we had no knowledge and in connection with which we had not the time to survey the evidence. I should like to correct something I said. I said that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had suggested setting up two courts, but I think he suggested rather that these things should be referred to the exchequer court.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, there does not appear to be a great deal of time left before nine o'clock in which I can say all I want to say on this bill, but perhaps I can pick up just a few loose ends. I think where the disgrace comes in is to impose upon parliament, the highest court in the land, all the ramifications of the presenting of bills to both the upper and lower houses, having the bills printed, going through all the procedure of having them adopted in this house, simply for the purpose of dissolving a civil marriage. The disgrace is further accentuated when we are expected, if we are expected, to pass one or two hundred bills within a period of a few minutes without having the opportunity of asking questions. That is where the disgrace comes in.
This is nothing new. We have brought this thing up every year. The hon. member for Halton has stated that it would delight his heart if a certain province in this country could see its way clear to pass such legislation as would refer these matters to the courts. I do not know what is the position of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, but he asked whether we wanted this house to be turned into a court. I should like to ask him if in his opinion some other court should attend to these matters.
The sponsor of the bill is experienced in dealing with private bills and I should like to ask him if he agrees with this method. They all seem not to agree with the method. They appear to think it is obnoxious, yet none of them seems to make any move to alleviate the situation and see that something else is done. Why cannot we urge that the government take some step? I am not a constitutional expert, but I believe we have the constitutional right to set up a special court, say a court of domestic relations. Then the people in any province which does not

Supply-National Defence permit the reference of divorces to the courts could appeal to this court of domestic relations.
In connection with this particular bill, I agree with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar in that I think I can read into the bill some evidence of collusion. I read the evidence in connection with this bill quite carefully when I realized it would be coming up tonight and I find that what happened here is very unusual.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being nine o'clock the house will resume the business that was interrupted at six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence forces-
245. To provide for the defence forces of the navy, army and air services and defence research and development, and to authorize total commitments for this purpose of $3,831,270,000 including authority notwithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, to make commitments for the current year of $1,924,170,835 and commitments against future years of $1,907,099,165 against which commitments it is estimated that actual expenditures in 1951-52 will not exceed $1,595,050,000 of which $183,050,000 will be provided from section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, as supplemented by item 246, $1,412,000,000.


George Alexander Drew: Immediately before the committee rose at six o'clock we were discussing the use of the small arms arsenal outside Toronto. Certain questions were directed to the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce-I will wait, Mr. Chairman, until I can hear my own words.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I would
ask hon. members who are behind the curtains to remain silent.


George Alexander Drew: Questions had been directed
to the minister-I do not propose to continue, Mr. Chairman, until it is possible to be heard in the chamber.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Perhaps I
should remind hon. members that the jurisdiction of the chairman extends not only to the chamber but also to the lobbies. If they do not wish to resume their seats and listen to the debate, I would suggest that they go to other quarters.


George Alexander Drew: I shall start again. I was saying that before we rose at six o'clock certain questions had been directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in regard to the use being made at the present time of the small
[Mr. Hansell.l
arms arsenal outside Toronto. I do not know whether the minister is to be here this evening, but it would have been helpful in view of the nature of the discussion that took place. However, the Minister of National Defence is here. I took down the exact words of the Minister of Defence Production in answer to a question in regard to the production of the -300 calibre rifles and machine guns at that plant, which is equipped to produce rifles and machine guns. These were his words:
There is no production of 300 mm. rifles and machine guns because that is not a standard weapon at this time. Until a decision is made as to what will be the standard weapon to produce in Canada we will have no orders for the 300 mm. guns.
The minister referred to 300 mm. rifles, but I am sure that was in error; it should be -300 calibre rifles and machine guns, because we were discussing rifles and machine guns, and also the fact that there were -303 calibre rifles in this country at the present time. This indicates one of the difficulties with which we are confronted in discussing these estimates. In the London Free Press of May 3, 1949, the Minister of National Defence is quoted as saying at Detroit on May 2 of that year:
Canada has decided to abandon the rimmed cartridge -303 calibre rifle her troops used in two world wars for the rimless cartridge -300 type which is the American army service rifle.
That was a positive, definite statement of a decision, announced by the minister primarily responsible for the type of weapons which will be used by the defence forces of this country. That was just over two years ago. Therefore it was a matter of both surprise and concern when the members of this house learned earlier this year that the plant which is tooled up to produce rifles and machine guns, and which has produced very large quantities of rifles and machine guns, was not in fact making those arms for the Canadian armed services; but that whatever else it was doing, it was making shotguns for sporting purposes for sale through ordinary civilian channels. More recently this subject has been under discussion in the public accounts committee. On May 1, 1951, the deputy minister of national defence was being questioned in regard to the type of rifle that was to be adopted for the Canadian forces. Certain questions and answers indicate that there was no doubt as to what was under discussion, and no doubt as to the answer. At page 246 of the proceedings of the public accounts committee I find these words:


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has it been decided to adopt the
[DOT]300 as a standard rifle for the Canadian services?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Would you mind repeating your
question, Mr. Fulton? There is a great deal of noise in the room.

By Mr. Fulton:
Q. Has it been decided to adopt the American [DOT]300 rifle as the standard rifle for the Canadian forces, particularly for the Canadian army?
A. It has.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. As a matter of information may I ask the leader of the opposition if this evidence has been reported to the house? If it has not, it may not be quoted. If it has, I am sorry to have interrupted the hon. gentleman.


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Chairman, it has not been reported to the house, and if any objection is taken of course it cannot be read. I should have thought that on a matter so important there would be unanimous consent to the reading of a question and answer which have such a direct bearing on a question and answmr given in this house today, especially since the question and answer I read are wholly incompatible with the answer by the Minister of Defence Production. One statement or the other is correct. The statement by the deputy minister of national defence, which I shall simply refer to as a statement to that effect, does at least indicate a belated carrying out of the declaration by the Minister of National Defence in Detroit on May 2, two years ago. But today we had the statement by the Minister of Defence Production that these rifles are not being made. It did not stop at that point. The minister went on to explain that no orders will be placed-and I am using the words he used in this house this afternoon-"until a decision is made as to what will be the standard weapon to produce in Canada".
The members of this committee need a great deal more information now before we depart from this discussion. If the answer of the deputy minister of national defence is correct I should think all the members of this committee would want to know why we were selling rifles and machine guns and ammunition outside this country. M a n y were under the impression that a decision to change had been made. I would imagine many hon. members would want to know why large quantities of -303 ammunition were sold to China at a time when the ultimate use of that ammunition was likely to be in very uncertain hands. Certainly there was indication after indication that the reason we were disposing of -303 weapons and ammunition was that a decision had been made to change to the American standard, and of course we had the statement of the Minister of National Defence to that effect. Now, I should think first of all, Mr. Chairman, there should be the clearest possible statement by the Minister of National Defence explaining his statement of two years ago. What has
Supply-National Defence happened since then? Then, either from the Minister of National Defence or from the Minister of Defence Production, a full and complete statement as to what use is now being made of the small arms arsenal at or near Toronto, and exactly what is going to be done in regard to the equipment of our forces.


Brooke Claxton: The first observation I should like to make, Mr. Chairman, is that if we agreed to the position which you put to the committee two or three times, and which as I understood was agreed to by the committee, it would be a good thing if we kept to the order laid down, that is to deal with administration, inspection services, civil defence, and so on in order. Since the question has come up, I shall deal with it now.
On May 2, 1949, I did not say what was reported by the hon. leader of the opposition.


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to interrupt, but it was not reported by the leader of the opposition, it was a report which the press carried.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: You took the responsibility of reading it to the committee.


George Alexander Drew: Certainly I read it.


George James McIlraith: You took the responsibility of putting it on the record.


Brooke Claxton: Let us say you reported the report.


George Alexander Drew: I have read the report.


Brooke Claxton: That is all I said, and that is all I meant. I do not see why we should have to have little fights over such a small thing as this.


An hon. Member:: Neither do we.


Brooke Claxton: Who started it? I did not. What I said on May 2, 1949, when I was speaking in Detroit was:
A great step forward would be the adoption by the friendly powers of the rimless cartridge and the [DOT]300 calibre. We in Canada have decided to take that step but bringing , it about is again a difficult matter because we have some hundreds of thousands of perfectly useful weapons with rimmed cartridges and the -303 calibre.
At that time the countries with which we were most closely associated in our defence were Britain and the United States. We had set up a joint committee on the standardization of weapons. One of the most important weapons to be standardized was the rifle. The aim of all three countries was to achieve a common standard. Certainly, it was the aim of Canada, perhaps more than the other two, and for this reason. Both Britain and the United States have such large needs for weapons of all types that they can get an

Supply-National Defence economic run of weapons to equip themselves, and then can give or sell the surplus to some other country. Our position is directly the reverse. We cannot get an economic run of almost any weapon. We are a surplus producing country. We must work with the United States or Great Britain, and preferably both. We were, therefore, primarily interested in bringing about standardization.
The Department of National Defence at that time drew up a long list of weapons on which we were prepared to standardize. Very few of those weapons were weapons originally produced in Canada, because we are a nation of 14 million people, at that time 13 million, whereas the United States had 140 million or 150 million and the United Kingdom 45 million. Both of them had extensive connections and supply arrangements with other countries. We were the man in the squeeze. We had to work with one or the other, but preferably both. Our life would be much easier if both could come together, and we worked for that. At one time we thought the -300 calibre rifle, not necessarily the present Garand of the United States, but a -300 calibre would be adopted by all countries concerned. A team was set up by the three countries to look into the various possibilities. Our hope still was that they would agree, that the two would agree. It did not much concern us what the course was as long as there was agreement. That was our primary consideration, and it looked to us as if we would standardize on the -300 calibre. So I said at Detroit:
A great step forward would be the adoption by the friendly powers of the rimless cartridge and the *300 calibre.
In talking about the rimless cartridge, I was not talking out of turn because since 1912 the war office in Britain has had the intention of adopting the rimless cartridge. The one thing which prevented that being brought about was the fact that at no stage did they have less than several hundred thousand rifles equipped to fire the rimmed cartridge, and at no stage did they have less than several hundred million rounds of ammunition for that rifle. They were not in a position to throw the -303 rimmed cartridges and rifles into the sea, so they had to keep on with them. To make a transfer of this kind is difficult, and very expensive.
Then I went on to state:
We in Canada have decided to take that step . . .
That is, to standardize on the -300 calibre. That was what we thought would be adopted as a common standard at that time.
. . . but bringing it about is again a difficult matter because we have some hundreds of thousands of
[Mr. Claxton.l
perfectly useful weapons with rimmed cartridges and the -303 calibre.
As a matter of fact, the number of rifles we had of the 303 calibre of Mark IV type was closer to 300,000 than 200,000. Were we to throw these into the sea, give them away or sell them? No, we kept them and we did not start manufacturing because there was no agreement on any common standard, or on a common calibre. It was a matter of the greatest possible regret that there was no agreement. There is no agreement yet.


Mr. Low:: Does it look as if it is going to be impossible to get that agreement?


Brooke Claxton: Well, sir, I cannot say. It has been announced in the press that the British have adopted the -280; that has not been accepted by the United States. I cannot go beyond that. Since we have decided, and I think properly decided, to give arms and ammunition for three divisions to Europe, including rifles, and replace it with equipment of United States type, then it means that we have decided, not right across the board but generally, to adopt American standards so that as far as possible our equipment will conform to North American industrial practice.
My colleague the Minister of Defence Production said today that there is no production of the -300 calibre rifle and machine gun, because that is not a standard weapon at this time. That is completely correct. We have not begun to produce this weapon in Canada, because it is not a standard weapon, and also because to tool up for it would not be justified unless it was a standard weapon. Our own needs would not justify the cost of tooling up for the production of this weapon. We can buy them for far less money, even taking into account the exchange difficulties, from the United States without tooling up for production, so unless we can tool up for a production far greater than that necessary to meet our own needs-


Mr. Blackmore:: May I ask what the cost
of tooling up would be?


Brooke Claxton: I have not that information.
That is a matter for the Minister of Defence Production. It would be a large sum.


George Randolph Pearkes: It is a standard calibre with
the United States army.


Brooke Claxton: Right.


George Randolph Pearkes: Where it is a standard calibre, could it not be standard in Canada?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, with agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States. Then the Minister of Defence Production went on and said, until the decision is made as to what will be the standard weapon to

produce in Canada we will have no orders for -300 calibre guns. I have explained why that is so. We can buy from the United States-if they do not change their calibre sna ao not change their type of weapons- weapons to equip our forces with three divisions equipment;, far cheaper than we can produce them in Canada unless the weapon is made standard in some countries other than in Canada and the United States.


Solon Earl Low: Whom we could supply.


Brooke Claxton: Whom we could supply;
because obviously the United States is not going to buy rifles from us.


Mr. Brooks:: When can they supply us?


Brooke Claxton: Within a matter of the next
two or three weeks supply will be beginning. If we had tooled up for the production of either the -300 or the -280, we would have been out of step with one country or the other. Meanwhile we had between 250,000 and 300,000 -303 rifles that were just about as good, as I said. Why should we tool up and begin on production until we had explored every possible avenue of bringing the two countries together so as to have a common standard? That is the story. As I say, we now have somewhere between 250,000 and
300,000	-303 rifles in good shape, ready to fire, ready to shoot; and if our forces had to go into action tomorrow they would be equipped with -303 rifles. So would the British. So would the Dutch. So would the Belgians. So would the Italians but not the Americans. But in a year and a half from now or something like that the British will have the -280 and that no doubt will be made uniform with the Belgians. Meanwhile if we go into action we would always be fighting with both the British and the Americans, on the same front, organized with possibly separate supply lines. So long as we fight on the same front with the British and the Americans the difficulties of supply will not be great. But it would be infinitely better if the British and the Americans would get together and that is what we have been trying to achieve. If we had followed any other course than the one we have adopted, we would have been wasting the public's money.


George Alexander Drew: The statement by the Minister
of National Defence constitutes an argument against a decision at this time. But it does not answer the question as to whether the statement made-and a very positive statement-by the deputy minister of national defence was accurate. The statement he made was consistent with the statement made much earlier by the Minister of National Defence and I might say that what he has read does not in any way suggest that the 80709-189	.
Supply-National Defence press report was incorrect because, referring to the -303 calibre small arms, the exact words he has quoted from the text of the speech he made at that time were: We in Canada have decided to take that step. Evidently there were qualifications that followed and those qualifications are put before us today.
The minister says that we would not want to find ourselves out of step with one of the great nations with which we are associated. As it is we are going to be out of step with both of them. The United States has made its decision. It is going to use the -300 calibre. The United Kingdom has made its decision; it is going to use the -280 calibre. I think that all of us will agree with the minister that it is most regrettable that the United Kingdom and the United States have not agreed. But again without referring to the exact words but-and, I am sure, doing so correctly-paraphrasing what the deputy minister of national defence said before the committee on- the same day to which I have referred, the deputy minister explained why the decision had been made. He explained that we are next door to the United States, that our industrial standards are similar to theirs, that the industrial flow in this country goes side by side with theirs and therefore it was reasonable for us to make the decision to adopt their standards. The explanation related to a decision that had already been made. I am pointing out at this time that we have conflicting statements before us and that those statements should be resolved. It is not enough for the members of this committee to be left to guess as to who makes correct statements and at what time. It is not for us to guess about a statement of the Minister of National Defence in 1949 on qualifications that were never fulfilled; nor is it for us to guess that there were some reservations which did not appear in any statement made when the deputy minister of national defence, taking great care to inform himself before giving any answer, gave a statement to this effect as recently as May 1.
The Minister of National Defence has
placed some emphasis upon the fact that we can hardly yet make this decision. But I was under the impression that just a short time ago he had indicated that we had made a decision to the extent of buying equipment from the United States. I think we should know whether any -300 calibre weapons have been purchased from the United States or, if not yet purchased, whether they are on order or whether an order is contemplated.


Brooke Claxton: I thought I had made the
position just as plain as it could be made for the understanding of any reasonable being.

Supply-National Defence The fact is this, and I will repeat the whole thing again if necessary. The Minister of Defence Production was referring to production. He said: Until a decision is made as to what will be the standard weapon to produce in Canada, we will have no orders for the [DOT]300 calibre gun. I said that and he said that.
I say it again. And I will say it again and again, and he will say it again. There is no inconsistency. Unless we can have a line built up and a demand built up to justify the production of rifles by the 50,000 or the 100,000, there is no point in our doing it in1 Canada. We will get them from the United States, as I said. And as I said, we have arranged with the United States to get the -300 calibre rifle. If they change, then we will have to look at the situation again. What could be plainer?


George Alexander Drew: The answer has not been given to the question as to whether we are in fact buying -300 calibre rifles.


Brooke Claxton: Of course we are.


George Alexander Drew: We are?


Brooke Claxton: Of course.


George Alexander Drew: Are those going to be orphans?


Brooke Claxton: No, not at all. I do not see how the leader of the opposition can feel that he could possibly raise such a question at this time. We are trying to standardize with the United States. We get the equipment for three divisions from the United States or make it in Canada. That part of it which it is economical to make in Canada, we make in Canada. So far, because the -300 calibre is not standardized with any country except the United States, we do not think it is economical to make it in Canada. However, if the United States should, in the middle of the transfer of this three divisions' equipment, change the pattern of its rifle, we would stop the flow of the -300 calibre rifle to Canada and take the new one. In the meantime, we have lots of rifles of -303 pattern exactly identical with those with which the British, the Netherlands, the Belgians and the Italians would have to fight, as well as all the countries of the commonwealth at the present time. What other course can we follow? It takes about eighteen months to do one of these operations, to change the pattern of a rifle.


Mr. Johnston:: We are still producing the
[DOT]303?


Brooke Claxton: We are not making any
[DOT]303's. We have more than we need, much more than we need. We are transferring them to Europe.
To make this kind of change takes time, sometimes a few years. As I said, the
[Mr. Claxtcn.J
British war office decided on the rimless cartridge in 1912, and now for the first time it has decided to bring it about. Why? Because they always had such tremendous stocks of rimmed cartridges. This is very obvious. If there is any misunderstanding left I will be very glad to hear about it.


George Alexander Drew: The minister has now indicated that we are buying the -300 calibre weapons for our three divisions. I will assume from what he has said, and from what has been indicated before, this equipment is what is intended to be the service equipment. If that is so, then is there any thought that we will be manufacturing rifles or machine guns of any other calibre than that which we are purchasing of this scale for the service units?


Brooke Claxton: No.


George Alexander Drew: If that is so, I would point out-


Brooke Claxton: I beg your pardon. As regards machine guns I am not too sure, because we have found the Sten gun to be exceedingly useful and we may continue to produce that if it becomes desirable because of any shortage of stocks. We hope that other countries will adopt it. It is a very cheap kind of gun to make and very effective at short range, and we think there is a real military need for it. There may be exceptions of that kind, but let us stick to rifles.


George Alexander Drew: No; I think the minister will agree with me that distinction is drawn between the Sten and the machine guns of the same calibre as the service rifle, and that is standard practice with all arms, whatever their calibre is.
The Sten is correctly described as a submachine gun; is that not correct?


Brooke Claxton: Right.


George Alexander Drew: And a distinction is drawn between machine guns and sub-machine guns. I was referring to machine guns because the ammunition supply is the same for both machine guns and the rifles. I would point out that this concern about manufacturing for our own demands is not consistent with the attitude this country has adopted in the past. This country first started to manufacture its own rifles before 1910, and some of the machinery which was used to make rifles and machine guns in this country during the war was machinery that was continuously in this country from that time.


Brooke Claxton: Right.


George Alexander Drew: During the last war we set up plants and I understand that most of the rifles that are here now are rifles that were made in Canada, and for that reason it seems

rather strange that at the time, after all these years of being prepared to make our own weapons, we should be so concerned now about embarking on the production of our own equipment.
I do raise some question about the fact that it would take a year and a half to produce a -300 calibre rifle, because the machine tools are standard tools very largely, except for the tools which bore the internal diameter of the tube, and the other designs. If they are using a rifle that is of standard pattern in the United States the designs and patterns are ones that could be brought here for that purpose.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that the members of this committee have reason to review with some care what has been taking place in regard to the public accounts committee, because undoubtedly an impression was conveyed there-and I am sure, conveyed in complete good faith-which is certainly contrary to that now placed before this committee. I would point out that the reason these questions are following in regard to the production of weapons is that this question was raised before dinner-not by me-and the discussion took place. The Minister of Defence Production gave explanations, and it seems logical that we should follow this through to the rational point. I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence what is being produced in the way of military equipment at the small arms arsenal at Toronto at this time.


Brooke Claxton: That is a matter for the Minister of Defence Production when his own estimates come up. I should like to give a further answer to the hon. leader of the opposition and say that from my recollection -no doubt I am giving another military secret-perhaps for three divisions some
20,000	rifles might be required. During the second world war we produced rifles by the hundred thousand. To tool up for a production of 20,000 is far more expensive than to buy them from the United States-I mean by "far" very much more expensive.
Then, I did not say it would take a year and a half to produce the equipment from the manufacturing point of view; but to effect any changeover, given the present circumstances, we will be in the situation where Britain, the countries of Europe and ourselves will have part American and part British and part other type equipment for some period of time. We have done more than any country on the face of the earth to end that situation. We have not succeeded, but because we have not succeeded we do not see why we should be blamed. We have done 80709-189i
Supply-National Defence our utmost, and we would like very much to be in a position to use some of our resources for the production of arms and weapons for other countries. We thought the most effective way we could do this would be to give equipment to the value of about one hundred and fifty million dollars to other countries and replace it and accelerate the job of standardization so that on the other side of the ocean they would have British type equipment; on this side we would have American type equipment; in between we are going to be a bit mixed up. Of course we know that is inevitable, but this course will speed the kind of operation which has never happened before in the history of the world and we hope it may be successful in bringing about some acceptance of common standards by other nations. We have made our way very plain, and I do not see what else we can do. There has not been any suggestion here that we should have taken any other course. I have discussed this around the table with the North Atlantic treaty nations. They think it is right. They are glad to get our equipment, and they think it is a good thing for them to standardize all equipment of the type which they got either from the British, from ourselves or from others after the end of the second world war; whereas we go on with the United States type. It all seems to make sense to them and to us.


Howard Charles Green: Has France adopted the British standard?


Brooke Claxton: No. I must say on this
question of standards it has already been indicated by the Minister of Defence Production that one weapon, the 3-inch 50-calibre naval gun, has been adopted by the British, by the Americans and by ourselves. It is an American gun. It is a very complicated and difficult gun to make. I was told-I do not know whether it is true-that it takes 7J tons of blueprints. There are other common types. We had mortars and some anti-tank weapons. Already they are common to all countries. There will be more. This thing will grow. It is developing; and I think we are going to be more in line with both the British and the Americans than any country -so long as we fight together-so that we will not have much difficulty. And when I refer to fighting together I mean fighting alongside each other-and it is inconceivable that in the event of war that should not happen. In such event we will not have much difficulty about supplies.


George Alexander Drew: The minister did not answer the question I asked, but he did raise a point which he said had come to his attention after he sat down, and that was that the total number of rifles required for three divisions

Supply-National Defence would probably be 20,000. I would point out that that might leave a most misleading impression-and I do not mean intentionally. It might mislead members as to the number of rifles which would be required. Three oivisions do not require 20,000 rifles: three divisions require a great many more than that, if those three divisions are going to be in the field.
The minister shakes his head, but I point out that for every man who is in a serving unit there are a great many men training, and that those men in training need the same type of equipment, if they are to produce satisfactory results.


Brooke Claxton: Quite right.


George Alexander Drew: If you are going to have 20,000 rifle strength in three divisions-and I grant it might be debatable as to what the exact amount would be-I should think a minimum of 100,000 rifles would be required, and probably more.
As the minister has already said, we had in excess of half a million rifles in this country after the end of the war. While we had three divisions in formations, we had at the most five divisions overseas. That gives some indication as to the number of rifles required in relation to the actual operational strength. So I suggest we should not in any way have our minds fixed on a figure of the rifles actually needed for the divisions, but on the total number that would be required for an integrated training program which would be capable of producing those divisions in the field.
I did ask a question which apparently escaped the minister's mind when he turned to the statement he made in regard to rifles.
. asked what was being produced in the way of military equipment at the small arms arsenal in Toronto at the present time. The minister did say that the Minister of Defence Production could give that figure; but I am sure he could tell us whether they are making service rifles or Sten guns.


Brooke Claxton: No service rifles; no Sten guns. We have lots of them.


George Alexander Drew: Without attempting to give
exact numbers, would the minister say whether they are making service rifles, machine guns, sub-machine guns, or any weapons of that kind, including mortars, anti-tank rifles or anything of that nature, at the arsenal?


Brooke Claxton: I do not think so. I doubt it very much. But that is a question for the Minister of Defence Production to answer. Except for mortars, and two or three types of weapons which are very new, we have ample
[Mr. Drew.J
stocks to meet all our needs. What is going on is mostly by way of modification.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I would remind
the committee that we are considering civil salaries and wages.


George Randolph Pearkes: Regarding inspection services, which come under the civil service, I notice that in the annual report it states that inspection services contain well-equipped laboratories. Are they different from the laboratories maintained by the defence research and development board?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: And which are completely
separate. Is there any overlapping there?


Brooke Claxton: None at all. But defence research will be brought in by inspection services to advise them as to a particular method of testing, or a new technique or new equipment. But most of the laboratories which are used by inspection services are for the testing of leather, metals, clothing, electronic equipment, et cetera, to make sure that their performances and standards are adequate. They are not for the purpose of research.


George Randolph Pearkes: Are there any of these inspectors, in those laboratories or elsewhere, considering the manufacture or the methods of inspection required in connection with, let us say, rimless ammunition? They would have to go out of the country to do that, no doubt.


Brooke Claxton: All the people engaged in defence are in consultation with each other, through interlocking directorates and committees. But the job of inspection services is primarily to make sure that articles supplied by manufacturers, on orders from the Department of Defence Production, meet specifications. If they find that the method of production is uneconomic they will report back.


George Randolph Pearkes: Do they carry out any inspection work in the United States at factories making material which we might make very shortly? What I am trying to get at is this: if we are likely to adopt this rifle, is not the time now ripe for these inspectors who would have to give the advice to be down there, finding out how these rifles are made, and finding out how the ammunition is made?


Brooke Claxton: That would not be done by inspection services. That would be done by defence research, working together with the proper personnel of the armed service concerned. We have teams in the United States watching the development of their weapons,

just as they have teams in Canada watching the development of those we are producing. They work together and exchange views. We have a completely reciprocal service with regard to inspection.


Howard Charles Green: Would it be possible for Canada to manufacture these American type rifles, or are there some rights or restrictions which would interfere with their being manufactured here?


Brooke Claxton: No, none at all.


Howard Charles Green: None at all? I understand that, if we chose to do it, we could go ahead with it. Could we?


Brooke Claxton: So far I have known of no difficulty in that connection either by United States service authorities or the United States government. When it has been found to be sound economy for us to manufacture a thing in Canada, we have never failed to secure the right to do so.


Howard Charles Green: Would we be manufacturing ammunition for this rifle, or would it have to be purchased in the United States, as well?


Brooke Claxton: It would depend on the quantity. Certainly when we get the -300 calibre rifle into Canada we will be making -300 calibre ammunition in very short order.


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I ask hon. members to follow the agreed procedure, and to confine their questions to the details respecting civil salaries and wages.


Mr. Wright:: I should like to ask a question along the lines of one already asked. Are the people employed as inspectors from civilian or military personnel?


Brooke Claxton: They are both. To a greater degree than ever before they have integrated the service and civilian personnel. We have on the inspection board at quite high levels, as well as at intermediate levels, service personnel from the army, the navy and the air force. To a greater degree than ever we have in the Department of Defence Production working with civilians who are doing the procurement of products for the defence forces, service personnel covering quite a wide range of interests and experience. So far as possible we fit into civilian production methods so that the civilians will know what we want, in advance, and vice versa.


Percy Ellis Wright: How many of these personnel are engaged in inspection work in civilian
plants?


Brooke Claxton: I am afraid I have not a note of it. My recollection is that at Malton, for example, where we are producing the CF-100 Canuck aircraft, there is a total air
Supply-National Defence force personnel of 35 plus probably 100 civilian inspectors who represent us.


Percy Ellis Wright: Is that in all the different plants?


Brooke Claxton: No, that would be just that one.


Percy Ellis Wright: Can the minister indicate the total number of inspectors doing this type of work?


Brooke Claxton: The total civilian staff in the inspection service is 727 and in addition I would estimate there would be probably 50 service personnel.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Can the minister give a break-down of civilian salaries and wages amounting to $3,400,000 and indicate what is involved there?


Brooke Claxton: The minister's office, 33, $90,317, an increase of one over last year. Deputy minister, 44, $175,403. Civilian personnel, 100, $227,925. Central registry-this is for all three services-145, a reduction of more than 50 per cent through unification, $305,136. Printing and stationery, 50, $114,042. Auditing, 45,	$136,521. Judge advocate
general, 22, $45,980. Public relations, 18, $50,457. Inspection service, 727, $1,956,031. Library, 6, $16,980; we have now one single library for all three services. Civilian defence co-ordinator, 80, $271,702.


George Alexander Drew: Those figures are just for headquarters, but I have a specific question I should like to ask. Can the minister give a list of the civilians attached to the following branches of the army, and also the total pay?
A.	Civilians at the pay record office.
B.	Civilians at headquarters. I assume the answer the minister has already given will cover this.
C.	Civilians attached to regimental units, armouries and other establishments of that nature.
D.	Civilians employed in connection with recruiting, welfare and associated activities.
E.	Civilians at hospitals and medical establishments.
F.	Civilians at military schools and training establishments.
G.	Civilians at army educational establishments.
H.	Civilians at Army Service Corps, veterinary and replacement establishments.
J.	Civilians employed in connection with railways and inland water transport in any way connected with military activities.
K.	Civilians at ordnance establishments.
L.	Civilians at RCEME establishments.

Supply-National Defence
M.	Civilian staffs for works engineers and land services.
N.	Civilians attached to the provost corps.
I am asking the minister to give under
these heads the number of civilians employed, the nature of the employment such as is given in the estimates of other departments of government, and the total pay.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member is asking about the army and we are still under administration. I do not think it would be a bad thing if every now and then we conformed with the arrangement arrived at in this committee. The hon. member knows something about the armed forces, and I think he realizes that he has chosen an arrangement which could not be arrived at and told to the committee without going into individual files. It does not happen to conform to the arrangement of the estimates as laid down by the comptroller of the treasury and the Auditor General. Our estimates are arranged in exactly the same way as those of other government departments and in accordance with the directions of the Auditor General and the recommendations of the committee on public accounts.
The hon. member is asking about headquarters, regimental establishments, recruiting, welfare, hospital, medical establishments, military schools, educational establishments, army service corps, veterinary corps-I do not think we have one any more-post office, railways, inland transport and so on. I suggest that the easiest way for us to proceed is to take up the matters which are before us in the order in which they are laid out. If I cannot answer any questions on that basis then I shall get the answers. If it is really important for the information of this committee and the country that we should rearrange our accounts, then we will go back to the Auditor General and the comptroller of the treasury and see how we can do it. Until then I am subject to your direction.


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I ask the
minister if it is his contention that the question asked by the leader of the opposition should have been asked under "civilian salaries and wages", of the heading "Army"?


George Alexander Drew: I am asking it under civilian salaries and wages. I have asked the question in regard to the army and I will ask the same question in regard to the navy and in regard to the air force, all of which comes under administration and all of which I state definitely comes under civilian salaries and wages. We are not able to tell at what point the division comes, and surely this would be the place where we could best get that information.


Brooke Claxton: The item we are dealing with is administration and I have already given the break-down of the allocation of civilian salaries under that item. I do not know what hiore I can do to answer the hon. member under that item. Then if he wants to ask a similar question under each successive service I will be glad to give the same information.


George Alexander Drew: I assure the minister that I shall ask the same question. I had thought it might be more convenient to bring them all together at this time, but if the minister prefers it otherwise then I shall certainly ask that question at each point. If the minister does not think the headings I have suggested are the most appropriate, then I simply suggest that for the purposes of convenience he adopt headings more satisfactory to himself. My only concern is that they be headings which adequately embrace the different categories of civilians employed in that way.


Brooke Claxton: We are in complete agreement on that.


George Randolph Pearkes: I think it would help the committee if we had it quite clear that this amount is for civilians employed at headquarters here in Ottawa.


Brooke Claxton: And the civil defence and inspection services right across the country. As to headquarters, it is only that part of the civilian staff applicable to headquarters itself. As we look through the items later it will be found that there are civilian salaries under navy, army and air force, and they are not included here. These are the civil employees applicable to headquarters, with a total of $3,489,842 which I gave in answer to an earlier question. That includes under headquarters the civilian employees of the judge advocate general, public relations, inspection services and civil defence co-ordinator, all which report to headquarters.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would that include the
civilians employed on the clerical staff at naval headquarters?


Brooke Claxton: Not those under navy, army or air force; only those under the department, at headquarters itself.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should like to ask a question which is not so intricate as some that have been asked, but concerning a matter on which I should like some information. I have hunted through the details of the estimates and cannot find what I want. The question arises out of the answer to a question I asked a year ago with regard to the naval barracks and armouries being built in my province, at Charlottetown.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. If we are to proceed in an orderly manner I am afraid I will have to ask the hon. member to ask his question at another time. This item covers civil salaries and wages, on page 269.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: This is on the same page and under the same heading.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Would the hon. member please resume his seat. I am trying to tell him that we are now discussing civil salaries and wages, and while that discussion is being carried on we cannot discuss naval barracks. Once this discussion is terminated we will move to professional and special services. The procedure agreed on this afternoon is that we are to study each detailed sum as it appears under the heading, first, of departmental administration including inspection services and civil defence. Under this heading we are now studying civil salaries and wages. Later the hon. member will have an opportunity to discuss barracks.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Under what heading was the manufacture of guns and ammunition discussed a few moments ago?


Louis-René Beaudoin: I was not in the
chair when the discussion started but I read the unrevised copy of Hansard covering the half hour before six o'clock in order to ascertain how the discussion had commenced. I may tell the hon. member that it arose from a question asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo in connection with inspection services. At one point the hon. member asked if inspection services were carried on at the dominion arsenal at Longueuil, and since the Minister of Defence Production was here he gave an explanation. That is how it started, and that discussion was finalized a few moments ago. We are now on civil salaries and wages. Has the discussion terminated on that item?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: If a mistake was made before six o'clock in not following the procedure that was laid down, why not make another mistake now? I am going to get the answers anyway.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I would be glad to accommodate the hon. member, but even if one mistake was made I do not intend to be a party to another.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I notice that altogether there is something over $50 million for civil salaries and wages scattered through these national defence estimates. Would it be possible for the minister to provide us with a mimeographed sheet of some kind that would give us the sort of break-down he gave me for the item of $3,489,842? I would like to know, for instance, the scale of those
Supply-National Defence salaries, what are some of the higher salaries and what are some of the lower ones. Are these people civil servants, permanent or temporary, or are they not in the civil service?


Brooke Claxton: The department employs
civilians in a number of different categories; first, permanent civil servants; second., temporary civil servants, in exactly the same way as every other department of the government. They get corresponding salaries, and they received) the increase which was made applicable on December 1, 1950. Then the department employs a very considerable number of prevailing rate employees, largely in the dockyards at Halifax and1 Esquimalt, and also in the shops of RCEME and the ordnance corps. In connection with those employees the practice is to pay the rate decided by the Department of Labour to be the rate prevailing in that locality for equivalent work. We observe that rule very closely. In consequence we pay the civilians working in the department, who are not civil servants but who are prevailing rate employees, the rates paid for equivalent work in the locality, as determined by the Department of Labour.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Are some of those salaried employees who are not civil servants being paid at prevailing salaries?


Brooke Claxton: No. There are two categories. If a man is on salary then he is a temporary or permanent civil servant. If he is not on salary he is a prevailing rate employee, paid at the rate prevailing in the community.


Howard Charles Green: Has the department been making any study of the question of national registration? I ask that question because in the report of the national advisory council on manpower there was a recommendation that various departments, I think including the Department of National Defence, should make an immediate and comprehensive study of all aspects of the national registration question.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Perhaps the hon. member did not hear me a moment ago when I said we were now discussing civil salaries and wages. It may be that the question he is bringing up pertains to this matter, but it would help the committee very much if he would come to his question, because I do not see how he can discuss that matter at this point.


Howard Charles Green: A survey of that kind would be undertaken by the administrative staff at national defence headquarters, and I submit I am quite in order in asking the question under 'this item. This item covers, for

Supply-National Defence example, the deputy minister. I believe that the deputy minister is a member of this manpower eouncil. I submit that I am in order in asking the question on this particular item. 1 would ask the minister whether that recommendation of the manpower council has been carried out by the Department of National Defence?


Brooke Claxton: What recommendation is it?


Howard Charles Green: The recommendation reads as follows:
That the department concerned should make an immediate and comprehensive study of all aspects of the national registration question.
Now that included the Department of National Defence. I would ask whether any such study has been made or is being made by the department, and if so the results thereof?


Brooke Claxton: Such a study has been made, of course, and the results will be made known to the body which asked it, that is the advisory board on labour, when it next meets.


Howard Charles Green: There will be a report on this question of a national registration made to the advisory council on manpower when it meets next week?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I submit to
the hon. member that, in my opinion, this question might more properly have been asked when the general discussion took place. We are now into the detailed study of the estimates, and if we are to follow the procedure agreed upon this afternoon we will have to consider now civil salaries and wages until that detailed sum is disposed of.


Mr. Herridge:: Can the minister inform
us what numbers of these employees are men and what numbers are women, and if the proposed organization of the women's auxiliary will mean that some of these enlisted women will be utilized for this type of work?


Brooke Claxton: No women whatever. I was
too quick in answering there: no women in the armed forces will be utilized for this kind of headquarters work. The object in recruiting women for the air force is to employ them at work such as radar, plotting, electronics, telecommunications and the like. We have no present intention of employing any women in headquarters except for the purpose of administration and instruction.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Would the minister consider putting on the record a break-down of these civil salaries and wages similar to the one he gave on the first item about which I asked? If we could have that information on the record before we reach these items,
[Mr. Green '

I believe we could examine them more intelligently. It is very easy for the minister to read them out.


Brooke Claxton: Well, I could give the figures.
I shall give the sheet to Hansard so as to make sure they are correct.


Joseph William Noseworthy: My point is whether the minister would consider giving the same figures for the other sections, so that we may have them before us when we reach those parts of the estimates?


Brooke Claxton: No, I think we had better
keep to the order of the discussion.


Joseph William Noseworthy: There is some $15 million under the navy. Would it be possible to have that on the record before we come to examine this item, so we could have some opportunity of examining the details in advance?


George Alexander Drew: Why would it not be convenient to give the salaries of each of the categories, and the number of employees in that category? After all that must be a matter of very simple record, and is a regular procedure. Can that not toe given?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, it can be given if the
people of Canada want to pay for it. We could give it. There is no security attached to it. We have approximately 30,000 civilian employees in the department today and about 70,000 service personnel. We can give you their names, dates of birth and salaries if you want, but does it serve any useful purpose? I believe what the hon. member for York South would want would be a breakdown in respect of the navy, army and air force such as I gave for general administration. We will be glad to have that available as we reach each item.


George Alexander Drew: Do I understand that the minister thinks that is not a useful thing, to give the actual salaries opposite the category and the number employed?


Brooke Claxton: They are exactly the same
as any other government service. I could read them out, but what advantage it would be to hon. members, I do not know. I could do it here, for example-


Mr. Warren:: Whoever reads them?


Brooke Claxton: If we came to the navy, I
could easily say we have in the civil staff at Halifax, permanent, 89; temporary, 1,039; prevailing rates, 1,438; new continuing, 60; a total of 2,626. To draw off their actual pay would mean that we would have to draw each man's pay card, because a great number of them are prevailing rate employees, add it

up and put it into shape to put before the
committee. How that would help the committee, I do not know.


George Alexander Drew: Well, Mr. Chairman, I must
coniess I am unable to understand the resistance of the minister as to something that is the regular practice in the other departments. Just as an example, let me refer to page 382 of the estimates, resources and development. On that page it starts, departmental administration, and that is what we are considering here. The first item is "One deputy minister and commissioner of the Northwest Territories, $15,000." Then it gives the "assistant deputy minister, planning; assistant deputy minister, administra-ton; director of administration." Then, you go on down through the whole list in which you have the details. For instance, there are thirteen clerks, grade 4, salaries from $2,568 to $2,904, and then the total is given, $31,227.
Then, a little further on there is another example, "Nine clerks, grade 2A, $1,560-$2,088;" and so on with the rest of the employees of the department. Then, you will find that where there are people employed in this department at casual rates, or at what are described as prevailing rates, they are lumped under the total sum and the number. It is either one of two things; either this book of estimates is brought together on a most inefficient and unnecessarily complicated basis by including these figures for other departments, or else there is some reason for it. It seems to me the reason for it is so the members of this house will have an idea of the salary level of the various categories of civilian employees. No matter what may apply to service employees, civilian employees are in exactly the same category in the Department of National Defence as any other department. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I find it extremely difficult to believe these figures are not readily available, because I would imagine we would have had a report a long time ago from the Auditor General that the accounts of the Department of National Defence were kept on an entirely different basis than any other department if those figures are not available right now.


Brooke Claxton: I am sorry to have to assure the hon. leader of the opposition that, from the information which I have at this stage, those figures are not available right now. We made up our estimate and kept our accounts in accordance with the directions of the Auditor General, and those figures have not been included.
Supply-National Defence
Now, he has referred to page 282 of the estimates where there is a reference to 63 employees. If we are going to do that for the Department of National Defence, with
30,000	civilian employees, it will run to an awful lot of paper and it will not do anyone very much good. If that had been desired, it might have been indicated before, and then could have been considered. But the estimates have been made up in the form in which they have following the recommendations of the public accounts committee and the Auditor General last year; that is the form in which we have the material available. I shall be glad to give hon. members any information that is before me, and I shall be glad to get any information that they think it desirable to place before the committee. But I do suggest it is very desirable that we should consider the cost of obtaining this, and the advantages that might result.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Defence is really creating bogeys that do not exist. I have in my hand the army estimates for the present year for the United Kingdom. At page 72 of those army estimates I find, for instance, "civilians attached to regimental units." That is only one group, and that amounts to 5,438. It is not just a handful of people. In each case it gives the salary level; it gives the number and gives the total. I might say that that total, being 5,438, with the designation, the salaries and the totals, is all contained on one page of this book. When we are told that this would entail such a prohibitive cost and would be so difficult, I would only say that the minister would be following the practice that is well established, to which we have referred on numerous occasions and one which I am satisfied their records would now give, without any complicated detail.


Ralph Melville Warren: Does it give their telephone numbers?


George Alexander Drew: I shall not say what I intended to say.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


James Arthur Ross: I do not think the hon. member could handle them.


George Alexander Drew: All through this book the same practice is followed. For instance, on the preceding page, there is given "civilians at command headquarters and other headquarters establishments, 17,350." There again you have the salary levels, the number, and the total; and in those cases whether they are employing people at current levels as the minister did, they give it in that way in a bulk figure.

Supply-National Defence


Ralph Melville Warren: We do not want it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Our own Post Office Department does it, at page 331; there are 17,000 employees.


George Alexander Drew: Yes. To come to our own estimates, at page 330, under the post office, we find there a total of 15,495; and above that you will see the details of salaries given, except where there is simply one official or again where they are indicated at prevailing rates as in the case of some of the employees of this department.


Howard Charles Green: And approximately 17,000 on the next page.


George Alexander Drew: Then on the next page-and I mention this just to show that it is not dealing with handfuls of men-under the post office again, there is given a figure of 17,638, with the details and the salaries, and the total of approximately $54 million.
With this practice so clearly established, it is difficult to credit the fact that the accounting method is such that this information cannot be given to this committee in some similar form; and I think it should be given. I suggest right now that instead of having the resistance that there is to giving information, it should be seen by this time how much more rapidly we would proceed if the minister would agree to follow the practice adopted in other departments and in the United Kingdom, and would take the lists that are available, have them prepared, and made available to us here. Then we can proceed to discuss this matter with knowledge of the facts before us.
The Minister of National Defence used glowing terms with regard to our attempts at standardization-and I only use this as an illustration-when he said that no nation in the world had done so much as we had done. The only way we have done that is to do nothing, in this particular case, evidently. But we are told that we can get the details of this department and that this department gives more information than any other. I must say that so far as I can see the answer is that this department is best because it does nothing to give us the information; the other departments do. This information is valuable or it is not. If the minister's contention is right and this information is not valuable, then it condemns every other department that takes the trouble to give us these details.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Chairman, when I asked for that information, I had no intention of asking the minister to do what he suggests he would have to do, namely to go back to these plants where men are employed


and pull their time cards to find out what they were being paid. What I was asking is that before we vote for five items amounting to $50 million, we be given something more than just a statement "civil salaries and wages" repeated five times, and amounting to over $50 million in this one department's estimates. I think we should have at least something approximating the information that we have in the other departments here or that we should have some idea where these people are going, what salaries they are getting, whether they are civil servants and what proportion are civil servants. The minister wants to know what good that would be to the Canadian public. I would think the Canadian public would want some knowledge of how an item of this size, namely $1,400 million, is spent. I think some detail would be of interest to the Canadian public, even if the minister thinks it is not of interest to us here in the house.


Brooke Claxton: I shall be glad to give the hon. member the information which I understand he wants as we come to each item. But to give it now, and put it on Hansard, I think would be anticipating the progress we hope to make.


Joseph William Noseworthy: If we could have something of that kind, either before us or on Hansard, instead of having to sit here and try to catch what the minister is saying as he reads these figures off, it would help us to study the matter intelligently.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just say one word in connection with this matter. Reference has been made to the form in which these details are given in connection with the other departments of government. I should like to point out that the book of estimates this year is considerably larger than it was last year. One reason is that more detail has been given, in keeping with suggestions made in the public accounts committee and here in the House of Commons. For example, greater detail is given as to the break-down between temporary and permanent employees. It seems to me that last year we did not ask that the one general item for civil salaries and wages in the Department of National Defence be broken down in the same way. Bearing in mind the fact that requests in former years with respect to the form of the estimates have been met to a considerable extent, I express the hope-without prejudice to the request that we get information this year-that next year, when the estimates are brought down, the Department of National Defence will bring down its information with regard to civil salaries and wages in the same way as do the other departments.

As the leader of the opposition, has already pointed out, the number of civilian employees in the Department of National Defence does not differ greatly from the number employed by the Post Office Department. The total amount spent for civil salaries and wages in the Post Office Department is $52,860,461. The total amount spent for civil salaries and wages in the Department of National Defence is $58,024,590. Those two figures are comparable in magnitude. In the case of the Post Office Department we get a break-down in the back of the book of estimates. My plea is that next year the estimates for the Department of National Defence be broken diown in the same way with respect to details in the back of the book.


Brooke Claxton: I think we are moving
towards this, Mr. Chairman. As hon. members will observe, it has been possible to increase the detail each year as post-war organization has developed. Certainly I gave instructions this year that we should do everything possible to give all the information we can and to conform completely with the recommendations of the Auditor General. That has been done with regard to all categories of defence expenditures, in the same way as the categories for the expenditures of all other government departments. They have the same class numbers and they are given under the same heads. If in addition it is desired that we should give details of each group of employees, we will certainly be more in a position to do that than ever before, because the development which has been planned has occurred, and I shall be glad to consider it and discuss with the officials of the department, treasury and the government, what can be done to meet the hon. member.


Mr. Harkness:: I have suggested to the minister in each of the last three years the desirability of putting forward the estimates of this department in the same form as they are put forward in every department, and in the same form in which they were put forward in this department up until I think 1947. The discussion we have had for the last half hour or more indicates I think the fact that if the estimates of this department were put in the same form as other departments we would have saved a great deal of time here in the house. It would be unnecessary to ask a lot of these questions as to how many employees there are in the administrative branch, such as the item we are considering. The whole thing would be there in front of us. There would be no necessity to ask questions about it. We would save a great deal of time in the house and greatly facilitate the examination of the
Supply-National Defence estimates, and also the speed with which we might get through. I would certainly again recommend very strongly to the minister that when the estimates for next year are brought down the same form be used as was used in these estimates before, and the same form in which they are brought down by other departments.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is the discussion
on civil salaries and wages terminated?


George Alexander Drew: No.


George Randolph Pearkes: Can the minister tell us how many deputy ministers ithere are in this department and what are their salaries?


Brooke Claxton: There is only one deputy
minister, and that is the deputy minister of national defence. His salary is $15,000. There are two associate deputy ministers at $10,000 each.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is there any other officer
under this heading who is drawing a salary of $10,000? For instance, is there a controller of the inspection services? If so, what is his salary?


Brooke Claxton: His salary is $8,500.


George Randolph Pearkes: And the associate deputy
ministers?


Brooke Claxton: I gave those.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the minister given the assistant deputy minister?


Brooke Claxton: No, I have not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There are both assistants and associates, are there not?


Brooke Claxton: There is one assistant who gets $8,000.


George Randolph Pearkes: Having dealt with that, how many special advisers has the minister?


Brooke Claxton: None. I beg pardon, yes. Engineer Rear Admiral Stephens, on labour questions particularly. Engineer Rear Admiral Stephens is a retired naval officer and his salary is $10,000. But he receives that in lieu of a pension of something like $6,000 plus; therefore he works for about $3,500.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would General Worthington be considered a special adviser?


Brooke Claxton: No; he is now transferred to my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and his salary is similarly fixed at $10,000, but he has not the advantage of both his pension and his salary, so he likewise is doing his present full time service for a supplementary income of something in the neighbourhood of $3,500 or $4,000.


George Randolph Pearkes: Since this item covers civil defence, would not his salary be included in this item?

Supply-National Defence


Brooke Claxton: Yes, that is right, and we will transfer to the Department of National Health and Welfare the money necessary to meet their expenses on civil defence which has been provided for in these items.


Mr. Hees:: The hon. member for Calgary East has just pointed out that for the last several years he has asked the minister each year if he would not the following year bring down his estimates in the same form as they were brought down I believe up to 1947, and in the same form as other departments see fit to bring them down here. I have been here only one year, but last year I heard the hon. member for Calgary East pose this question to the minister. I think there was some kind of assurance, vague though it may have been, that that would be done. It seems that nothing has been done in the meantime. I think many hon. members have expressed the opinion before that if this were done a great deal of discussion would not have been necessary tonight.
The hon. member for Calgary East has again asked the minister the direct question: will the minister next year see to it that his estimates are brought down in the same form as other departments, and in the same form as I believe the department brought down the estimates prior to 1947? He did not see fit to give an answer. I would be very interested to hear from the minister a direct answer to that question.


Brooke Claxton: No, sir, I cannot give an answer because the form of the estimates is entirely a matter for the Department of Finance, and the form in which our estimates are presented is not the result of my machinations, I can assure the hon. member, but is the result of the work of the Department of Finance, the comptroller of the treasury and the Auditor General. They indicate to us the form in which our estimates should be put and we put them in the form in which they want them. Now, I have no doubt they will read the discussion in Hansard and will take account of the hon. gentleman's question.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman,-


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for Kamloops.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wish to go back to the question of the associate deputy minister, but perhaps there is more discussion on this question of the form of the estimates.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Yes, but I should like to observe that the previous point was somewhat out of order. We are not going to discuss the method by which the estimates are to be presented next year. In my humble view that suggestion has been made by some

of the members to the minister who has replied to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and he has also given a reply to the hon. member for Broadview on the same question, and he has given a reply to the hon. member for Calgary East. Perhaps his reply is not that which the hon. member would wish, but nevertheless it is the reply of the minister, and he has indicated that that is the reply at least three times. I would suggest to the hon. members that we should carry on and discuss civil salaries and wages, which are relevant to the item.


George Alexander Drew: According to my recollections, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Defence said that his department did not keep those records in a way that would make it possible to give this information without costing the people of Canada a great deal of money.


Ralph Melville Warren: That is correct.


George Alexander Drew: I have before me the last copy of the public accounts, and at page N-49 there is a list of the civil employees of the Department of National Defence. It gives the names and the salaries. There is no suggestion that this is in any way inconsistent with the practice of the department. On the contrary, it is put forward as a regular matter of record by the Auditor General. We see that for the year that was covered by these accounts it gives the deputy minister's salary as $12,000; it gives the controller general of inspection services, the official to whom the hon. member for Nanaimo referred, at $12,000; it gives the assistant deputy minister at $10,000, and then it goes on with lists of names, with the salaries of each one, and that goes on for several pages. This is not a case of saying we have heard enough answers. We have heard enough answers to know that we need another answer, and that is why it is not possible-


Ralph Melville Warren: May I ask the leader of the opposition a question? Did he ever go into the military camp at Petawawa, and through the gate of that camp? If he did so he would be meeting men all the time and, with them, it is not a matter of salary. It is just a day's pay; that is all they get.


George Alexander Drew: I hope the hon. member who represents the constituency in which the Petawawa camp is situated is not under the impression that records are not kept as to what is paid the men who are there?


Ralph Melville Warren: They are getting small
amounts. It might be only a day's pay.


George Alexander Drew: Well, that is just the point. I would like to know how small or how large the day's pay is, as the case may be. But

lor one, I would like to know why it would be at all difficult to give the very information we have asked for, when the public accounts snow that that information is available.


Brooke Claxton: The public accounts make it very clear that that information is available in respect of the year 1949-50, when the amount was paid. I am not responsible however for the form of our estimates, and they have been made in a form which involves the grouping together of items in accordance with the recommendations of the Auditor General and the Department of Finance. We are now being asked to put under each item the number of clerks, the rate of salary, and so on. That might be done in a static year, but we have not had a static year. Each year has been one of tremendous growth, as is revealed in the development of the expenditures of the department. It was $192 million four years ago, about $425 million for the first half of this year, and it is now maybe $1,879 million.
At a time when there is that kind of development it was felt, perhaps not so much by the officers of this department as by everyone concerned, that to put down three stenographers at $500 each or fifty soldiers at this or that amount would be likely to be found misleading-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Civil salaries.


Brooke Claxton: -in consequence of the development of the department, which we were going to increase by fifty or sixty per cent or more each year. That, I understand, is the reason why this practice was adopted- and it was adopted before I came into the department. This year we adopted the form recommended by the Auditor General, and have conformed to the practice of other government departments, but without giving details as to civil servants. Details as to civil servants would take up a great many pages and it would be meaningless, and would not help the work of the committee. I think that must be the conclusion of everyone.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Would it be in order to
pass on to the next item, and ask-


George Alexander Drew: No, no.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On this item I would ask the
minister to give us a clear picture of the number of assistant deputies and associate deputies.


Brooke Claxton: That has already been done.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I must confess it is not clear
to me. Would the minister at the same time say whether there is any effort in the department whereby either assistants or associates
Supply-National Defence should concern themselves with one or other of the services? In other words is there an allocation of deputies or associates?


Brooke Claxton: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is there an allocation to any
of the services?


Brooke Claxton: No, not at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How many assistant deputies
and how many associate deputies are there?


Brooke Claxton: I just gave that information. Do I have to give it again? We have a deputy minister, and two associate deputy ministers, and one assistant deputy minister. The organization of the department is completely on a tri-service basis. All of the services are performed at that level by civilians for each of the three services. We consider it desirable that the unification should extend in that way.
I should like to have one more word with reference to the public accounts. There they have an alphabetical list of employees. What I have been asked for tonight is a list related to something in a future year which does not correspond either to the alphabet or to functions as indicated in the estimates. I would be glad as we come to each item of the estimates to give as full information as is available.


George Alexander Drew: That is exactly what we are
asking. We are asking for full information respecting the category of each of these employees, and of the amounts paid, except in such cases as they are being paid at ordinary wages; and in that case we would have them bulked as they are done ordinarily. That is what we are asking.


Percy Ellis Wright: It seems to me that in preparing the estimates to present to the Minister of Finance the minister's department must have had certain numbers of people in view, whom they were going to employ in different capacities. All we are asking is to have some of these figures which the minister must have presented to the Department of Finance.


Brooke Claxton: May I recall that I have already given those figures in relation to the item under discussion. I gave the amount of $3,489,842. I have described the number of employees, and their association with the department. It totals 1,270 employees. I have already given that.


Percy Ellis Wright: But the minister has not broken it down in various classifications, namely those who are stenographers or inspectors, or whatever classification they may have had. He must have had that information when he presented his estimates to

Supply-National Defence the Department of Finance. All we want is the number in the different classifications, and the salaries in those classifications. We are not asking for each individual.


Brooke Claxton: I see. As I understand it,
you would like to have that information for the 33 people in the minister's office, and their classification?


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes.


Brooke Claxton: And the 44 in the deputy minister's office, and their classification?


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes.


Brooke Claxton: And the 100 of civilian personnel, with their classification; and the 145 in central registry, with their classification; and the 50 in printing and stationery; the 45 in auidt; the 18 in public relations; the 22 in the judge advocate general's office; the 727 in the inspection service; the 6 in the library; the 80 with the civil defence board co-ordinator. All these make a total of 1,270, and you would like to have their classifications?


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes, the same classifications as are given in the other departments.


Brooke Claxton: Well, I would think it would take some time to obtain that. They were given, of course, in building up these estimates.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes, they must have been available then.


Brooke Claxton: Yes; and it would take some time to read it into the record. Of course we are only beginning with this. We will have some 30,000 altogether, including prevailing rate employees, which might represent 40 per cent. Do you want the same thing for the armed forces, too-which would be another 70,000?


Percy Ellis Wright: Just the civilian employees.


Brooke Claxton: It would require another book like this one. We had better do it next year, don't you think?


Douglas Scott Harkness: What the minister has just read out indicates the necessity for information of this sort. Among other things there is a public relations personnel of 18 civilians. It happens that a great deal of public relations work is done by service personnel. I believe there is a lieutenant colonel who is a public relations officer at national defence headquarters, with a man of equivalent rank in the air force and another in the navy. Then at each command headquarters there is a major or captain doing public relations work, along with other ranks. In addition to these public relations officers and other ranks there are 18 civilian personnel engaged in public

relations work. I have been under the impression that public relations work for the department was done by these public relations officers. What do the 18 civilians engaged in public relations work do and what are their salaries?


Brooke Claxton: The director of public relations has charge of the public relations activities for all three services and the department. Then there is the necessary clerical and stenographic staff in addition to the service personnel. I would think that this is one branch of the department's activities which will be considerably increased in the near future. We find we are understaffed at present.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What are the names and salaries of the 18 public relations civil servants and their classifications?


Brooke Claxton: The permanent civil servants are as follows:
F. Carlofsky, clerk grade 4, $2,580.
R. V. Dodds, information officer grade 5, $4,740.
R. C. Donison, typist grade 2B, $2,040.
M. M. Dustan, stenographer grade 2B, $2,040.
V. M. McCaffrey, clerk grade 3, $2,280.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The director does not appear in that list.


Brooke Claxton: He is temporary so far.


Mr. Quelch:: I take it that many of the civilians paid under this item will be doing the same work as service personnel who will be working alongside them. I know of a number of cases where the wages paid to a civilian amounted to $10 or $15 a day while the serviceman working alongside receives perhaps $2.40 a day or whatever the rate may be. I realize that the man in the armed service receives many benefits which the civilian would not receive but when the rate of pay is four, five or six times that paid tc the serviceman he seems to have good reason to complain. I think as far as possible we should avoid having that situation develop. If work of a similar character must be done by civilians and service personnel then they should not be working side by side.


Brooke Claxton: In 1946 the armed services
worked with a committee with the treasury board and the other departments concerned to work out a uniform scale of pay for the three services. At that time an effort was made to have the rates of pay in the navy, army and air force made equivalent to those paid by eight leading industries for similar work. The matter was gone into at great length, assisted by the Department of Labour, the dominion bureau of statistics and the

Department of Finance. At that time uniform rates of pay were fixed which we considered to be the equivalent paid by industry for similar jobs.
It must be remembered that the service personnel receive hospitalization, medical services, pensions, clothing and so on. All those benefits were taken into account. Subsequently there were two increases in rates of pay. The last increase was made as of December 1, 1950, and these were designed to make the increase across the board to all service personnel equivalent to the increase in the cost of living index since 1946.
A check was then made to see how they compared with the rates paid by the same eight leading industries, and they were found to be on the same basis. As far as possible the rates of pay are equivalent. No doubt in certain categories, particularly in jobs in RCEME, where the men would be working on motor vehicles or in the dockyards civilian personnel will be working alongside service personnel. Perhaps because of seniority or trades rating they may be receiving different rates of pay, but as far as possible we avoid that situation.


George Harris Hees: What is the name and the salary of the temporary director of public relations which the minister mentioned?


Brooke Claxton: The name is William
Dumsday. He is not a temporary director, he
Business of the House is the director of public relations. His salary is $6,000, but he is still a temporary civil servant. He was a wing commander during the war and did the same kind of work with the air force.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: On Monday we will resume the debate on the motion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs with respect to his estimates. Then we will take up the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Finance dealing with veterans professional loans. Then the two resolutions standing in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs with respect to pensions and certain rights and privileges to be granted to members of the special force. When those have been concluded we might consider the resolutions standing in the name of the Prime Minister with respect to certain matters here in Ottawa. If there is still time we will take up the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Labour having to do with an amendment to the Government Employees Compensation Act, 1947.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.